Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE COUNCIL OF STATE

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

[THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported the Answer of the Counsellors of State to the Addresses as follows:

We, Counsellors of State, to whom have been delegated certain Royal Functions as specified in Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 29th June, have received your Addresses praying that on the ratification by the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Sudan of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (The Democratic Republic of the Sudan) Order 1976, on the ratification by the Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Romania) Order 1976 and on the ratification by the Government of Spain of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Spain) Order 1976, drafts of which were laid before your House, orders may be made in the form of those drafts.

On Her Majesty's behalf we will comply with your request.

Elizabeth R, The Queen Mother

Margaret, Countess of Snowdon

We, Counsellors of State, to whom have been delegated certain Royal Functions as specified in Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 29th June, have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief

(Taxes on Incomes) (Fiji) Order 1976 be made in the form on the draft laid before your House.

On Her Majesty's behalf we will comply with your request.

Elizabeth R, The Queen Mother

Margaret, Countess of Snowdon

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SCOTTISH AMICABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

BUCKS LAND AND BUILDING COMPANY BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

NATIONAL EXHIBITION CENTRE AND BIRMINGHAM MUNICIPAL BANK BILL [Lords].

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

FOYLE AND LONDONDERRY COLLEGE BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Ordered, That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY (RIVER DERWENT BILL [Lords]

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]

Order for Second reading read; to be read a Second time tomorrow.

COITY WALLIA COMMONS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

STORNOWAY HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Vacancies

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current figure for registered vacancies.

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many vacancies there were for jobs on 1st July 1976.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): At 2nd July, 127,128 vacancies notified to employment offices and 25,971 notified to careers offices remained unfilled in Great Britain. These figures are provisional. Because of possible duplication the separate series for employment offices and careers offices should not be added together, nor do they constitute a measure of total vacancies in the economy.

Mr. Jessel: What is the Secretary of State doing to see that as many as possible of these 125,000-plus unfilled vacancies are taken up as urgently as possible? In view of the tragically high level of unemployment today, will he follow the sensible example of Australia and Holland and stop unemployment benefit after six weeks if people do not take up the unfilled vacancies offered to them and for which they are suited?

Mr. Walker: I agree with the hon. Member about the tragic nature of the figures published today. As for the matching of vacancies with applicants for jobs, I think he should know that there has been a significant improvement in the placement services of the Manpower Services Commission, which is continuing. He should bear in mind that vacancies do not always provide the opportunities or prospects for advancement to match the skills, abilities and aptitudes of those who are seeking jobs.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that the appalling unemployment figures published today are a clear indictment of our capitalist system? Does he also agree that we require the kind of Socialist policies with which

my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has often been associated, and which he has advocated in the past?

Mr. Walker: Certainly the unemployment figures are a reflection of the Western economic system, as can be testified by the fact that the malaise that we are enduring is common to all Western industrial countries. I hope that the House will derive some encouragement, however, from the fact that the trend of vacancies is continuing to rise and that the number of people on short time, and who are temporarily stopped, has dropped significantly.

Mr. Brotherton: Will the Minister reconsider his reply? Is it not shameful that the "won't-works" and the "can't-works" are paid the same level of unemployment benefit? Will the Minister therefore ensure that, in future, if a man is offered a job in accordance with his aptitudes and skills, he is free to turn it down, but we are free not to pay him unemployment benefit?

Mr. Walker: That is the statutory position that is exercised by officers. If people are offered suitable jobs it is a condition of continuation of benefit that they accept them. In 1972, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who was then Secretary of State for Social Services, instituted the sort of inquiry that some hon. Members are now calling for, looking into alleged abuses of benefit. It was found that, by and large, the allegations were unfounded and that the majority of those unemployed were seeking work.

Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend repudiate entirely the disgusting and despicable philosophy that is being expressed by the Conservatives? Is he aware that that was the philosophy which guided their party during the 1930s? Will he make it clear that in no circumstances will a Labour Government tolerate that type of concept for one moment?

Mr. Walker: We certainly do not contemplate responding to the wild and rather foolish demands made by some Conservative Members.

Mr. Prior: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition have never underestimated the problems of unemployment? We


have never failed to criticise the Government for complacency they have shown in what is now an extremely serious situation for the nation. When will the Government recognise the facts of life, which are that if they had allowed private industry to expand and had cut public expenditure earlier, as we said they should, the position would be far better today than it is?

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman is wholly unjustified in suggesting that the Government have been complacent. As he will know, the Government have introduced a wide range of contingency measures over the last 12 months or so and are urgently considering further measures, about which a statement will be made very shortly. A central theme of the Government's whole economic strategy is increasingly to shift resources into the manufacturing sector to expand it and thus provide job opportunities. It ill becomes the right hon. Gentleman to accuse this Government of causing high levels of unemployment when, in November 1972, under his Government, unemployment reached 1,574,000.

Training Opportunities Scheme

Mr. Litterick: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to expand the Training Opportunities Scheme during the next 12 months.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what expansion in the Training Opportunities Scheme is planned over the next 12 months.

The secretary of state for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): The Manpower Services Commission is planning to train 80,000 people under the Training Opportunities Scheme in 1976, compared with 60,000 in 1975. The objective for 1977 was 82,000 trainees, but is expected to be increased to 84,000 as part of the additional measures to alleviate unemployment announced on 5th May 1976.

Mr. Litterick: I am grateful for that reply. Notwithstanding that progress has been made by the Government in providing training opportunities, particularly for young people, in the city of Birmingham and, I understand, in other cities, it is still inadequate. May we have an assurance that the whole area

of training and work opportunities for the unemployed will not be left to the local authorities, many of which are now dominated by Tories who are hell-bent on reducing public expenditure to such an extent that that by itself will create yet another wave of problems?

Mr. Booth: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. The local authorities have played a very valuable part in bringing about a number of job creation schemes, but we shall not rely on local authorities to sustain or improve training. It would be unfair to put that task upon them in present circumstances. We have already brought about a substantial increase in adult training through the Training Services Agency and we are working with the Manpower Services Commission to improve upon the already increased numbers of places for training young people.

Sir W. Elliott: Will the Secretary of State look at registered vacancies in the Northern Region in particular and think in terms of encouraging private industry to introduce more individual training schemes? The level of registered vacancies alongside the very high unemployment figures just do not make sense.

Mr. Booth: I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. One of the schemes which has been developed through the TSA is that of assisting private employers by paying for additional places in their training schools and within their normal craft training arrangements. As a result of that we are aiming at sustaining, particularly in manufacturing industries, a training intake equivalent to that which existed before the recession started.

Mr. Corbett: I welcome my right hon. Friend's figures, but does he not agree that against the need to have skilled labour in the right places at the right time the figures are far too paltry?

Mr. Booth: I would not have called them paltry. They represent the biggest-ever Government effort to sustain and increase training. Our difficulty is to ensure that against the desperately serious unemployment situation sufficient training is carried out to avoid shortages of skilled labour when the upturn comes.


I do not think that we can guarantee that by the measures we have so far introduced, and that is why we are seriously considering whether they can be supplemented by additional measures.

Mr. Hayhoe: We fully support the provision of training opportunities. Will the right hon. Gentleman take the earliest opportunity to repudiate the absurd use of statistics by the Minister of State, who sought by the figure he used to get away from the fact that the Government are now responsible for the highest level of unemployment over the longest period since the 1930s? It is the Ministers of this Government who are the dole-queue millionaires.

Mr. Booth: There is no need for me to repudiate the figures used by my hon. Friend, because he was quoting figures which were calculated on the basis used at that time. Let me make it clear that that method of counting is not now used, and if common counting methods were still used, the figures would show that we have a much higher level of unemployment now.

Bank Holidays

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will review the dates of bank holidays, having consulted the religious, economic, European and other interests concerned.

Mr. Harold Walker: As already announced, the Government intend to introduce a May Day bank holiday in 1978 and to designate days in lieu whenever a holiday falls at the weekend. We have no other plans to review the dates of bank holidays.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the Minister of State understand the concern felt in the Christian community in this country about the neglect over the allotment of holidays in respect of the great Christian festival of Whitsun? Will he consult religious bodies in this country when this review is undertaken?

Mr. Walker: I understand that Whit Monday ceased to be a bank holiday as long ago as 1967 and that there was an experimental run until 1971 to discover whether the Churches and others were satisfied with the shift of date. In 1971 there was found to be no reason to move

it and we have had no suitable representations since to do so.

Dr. Bray: Will my hon. Friend consider the vastly superior system of local holidays in Scotland when he is considering any increase in the number of public holidays in England?

Mr. Walker: I am not sure that there is a vastly superior number of statutory holidays in Scotland.

Dr. Bray: The system is vastly superior.

Mr. Walker: In industry and commerce the majority of holidays are determined by collective bargaining.

Wales

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the increase or decrease in unemployment percentage in Wales since June 1974.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): Based on seasonally-adjusted figures, which exclude school leavers, the percentages were 3·5 at June 1974 and 7·1 at July 1976, giving an increase of 3·6 percentage points. The figure for July 1976 is provisional.

Sir A. Meyer: In other words, the figure has more than doubled. Will the Under-Secretary suggest to the Secretary of State for Wales, who has presided over the largest unemployment figures in Welsh post-war history and done nothing to mitigate them, that he should set an example to other Ministers by resigning, especially as he voted against extra jobs for his steel working constituents in Port Talbot?

Mr. Golding: That comes ill from an hon. Member who voted for the closure of the Shotton steel works. The Secretary of State for Wales has been associated with a long record of measures to alleviate the levels of unemployment undertaken by the Government.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is it not clear that, with Welsh unemployment standing at 7·1 per cent.—the second highest in the United Kingdom—special measures are necessary? What special measures are the Government proposing to take?

Mr. Golding: The Government will shortly be making an announcement on


further special measures to deal with unemployment. Selective measures have so far helped 12,000 workers in Wales. We have spent £40 million on advance factories, £4 million on the construction industry and have provided 400 community industry places.

Industrial Disputes

Mr. Torney: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for industrial disputes in the United Kingdom; and how these figures compare with other EEC countries.

Mr. Harold Walker: There have been 798 stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in the United Kingdom in the first five months of this year. I regret that comparable information relating to other EEC countries is not available, nor are 1975 data yet available.

Mr. Torrey: Does my hon. Friend agree that these figures show a considerable improvement and would probably compare well with the position in other EEC countries? Does he agree that the improvement is due to the Government's correct policy of consultation with the trade union movement, rather than the confrontation that we saw from the last Tory Government? Does it not also show that, contrary to what the Opposition are always telling us, the trade union movement is a very responsible body of opinion?

Mr. Walker: I hope the whole House will take comfort from the fact that the number of working days lost through disputes last year was the lowest since 1968 and that for the period January-May this year the figure is less than half that of the same period last year. No doubt this is due to a number of factors, but the co-operation with the trade union movement that has been achieved by the Government is a significant factor.

Sir John Hall: Is it not rather curious that comparable figures for other Community countries are not available? Are they not obtainable without difficulty from the ILO?

Mr. Walker: We are dependent on international sources, and they have not yet been able to provide the information.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Am I not right in thinking that we are members of the

Community? Were we not told that we would get a lot of benefits from membership? Are we now being told that the Minister cannot get for this House information which must be readily available in the Community? Has he tried to get it? If not, will he try, and then arrange for the information to be passed on to hon. Members?

Mr. Walker: The necessary information is provided not by the Community but by member countries, and they have not yet provided it.

Mr. Hayhoe: Why does the Minister persist in living in the dream world of believing that there is no connection between the present extremely high level of unemployment and the fact that there has been a welcome reduction in the number of disputes?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give credit to anyone. He claims that the improvement is due to market forces, but how does he explain that in 1972, when the level of unemployment, calculated by the present method, was 1 million or, calculated by the method used by his Government until they decided to fiddle the figures, 1,574,000, the number of working days lost through strikes in that year was 24 million—the highest since the General Strike?

Race Relations Advisers

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many race relations employment advisers are employed by his Department; and if he will indicate their duties.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): There are 18 race relations employment advisers, four of whom are part-time. They work closely with the agencies of the Manpower Services Commission and provide a specialist service to help both sides of industry to handle questions that may arise in a multi-racial work force.

Mr. Madden: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is a disproportionate level of unemployment among black people in the United Kingdom, compared with white people, and thereby repudiate the lies peddled by the merchants of race hate that black people are forcing white people into unemployment?

Mr. Grant: I confirm what my hon. Friend said. There is a disproportionate number of coloured people who are unemployed, compared with white people. Their unemployment rate is slightly higher than the national average. Unemployment among minority groups was 49,656 on 13th May—an increase of 2,714 in three months. However, this compares with an increase of 5,341 in the previous quarter.

Mr. Lipton: Can my hon. Friend say how these employment advisers are distributed? How many are in London and how many are in the provinces?

Mr. Grant: They are mainly in areas with high immigrant concentrations.

Mr. Farr: What are the advisers doing that the existing area conciliation committees cannot already do? Is not the fact that the Minister has seen fit to employ these people a form of racial discrimination in itself?

Mr. Grant: Far from it. There is a general recognition by all those involved in race relations in industry that the advisers perform a very valuable function. They maintain contact with all agencies, including the bodies mentioned by the hon. Member.

School Leaves (Unemployment)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the rate of unemployment for young people who left school during the summer.

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of school and college leavers this summer who are currently unemployed; and what proportion this represents of all those who have left schools and colleges this summer.

Mr. Booth: I regret that the information is not available in the precise form requested. On 8th July, 199,955 persons under age 18 and 24,380 aged 18 and over, who were still seeking their first employment following completion of full-time education, were registered as unemployed, but the statistics do not define the date on which education was completed.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the 1½ million unemployed—the worst total since

the war—does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be particularly obscene to use up to 250.000 youngsters as an economic weapon? Will he reject further public expenditure cuts that would cause even more unemployment, and consider introducing emergency programmes, such as the training schemes proposed by the Standing Conference on Youth Unemployment, especially in areas such as Kilsyth and Stirling, where the male unemployment rates are about 15 per cent. and 8 per cent., respectively.

Mr. Booth: I must appeal to my hon. Friend: the figures are bad enough without exaggerating them to 1½ million. Whatever the figures are, let us agree that they are far too high. We need to concern ourselves with policies and measures that will reduce them. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with that. I agree that it would be inexcusable to use unemployment among the young, old or middle-aged as a weapon of economic policy, and that is no part of the Government's approach. The Government are considering urgently measures to supplement existing measures, or to replace them with more effective measures than have been used up to now, to deal with this terrible level of unemployment. I hope to make an announcement very shortly.

Mr. Wigley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the 199,000 school leavers who are unemployed represent an increase of 82,000 on last month's figure and must be compared with the 55,000 unemployed 12 months ago for the same age group—namely a fourfold increase? Under those circumstances, will he extend the recruitment subsidy at a level of £10 per week and make it applicable to these people?

Mr. Booth: The figure of 199,000 represents those registered at careers offices. It consists of virtually all the under-18 figures. The figures are not directly comparable with those used by the hon. Gentleman, because this year school leaving took place from 28th May. That is bound to increase the figures. I am at present examining with the Manpower Services Commission an alternative to the present recruitment subsidy for school leavers, thereby acknowledging that school leaving figures of this dimension require a more effective approach.

Dr. Bray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the juvenile operator training pilot schemes operated by the Engineering Industry Training Board in Lanarkshire have been a remarkable success and are ripe for wider application throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom? Can my right hon. Friend offer any prospect of their early expansion?

Mr. Booth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The Government's proposals for new arrangements for vocational preparation for the 300,000 or so young people who leave school without any qualifications each year, and who have little opportunity of getting jobs in the present circumstances, are being considered. We shall publish tomorrow a document indicating our proposals for further pilot schemes. If these schemes prove successful, we hope to introduce them on a nation-wide basis to deal specifically with this problem.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that unless at least £1,000 million worth of cuts are made in the Government's expenditure the unemployment figures for young people and for other unemployed people are liable to rise in the coming 12 months?

Mr. Booth: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to try to seek some accord with Opposition Members who have argued that if we had reduced public expenditure we should not have had this serious level of unemployment. In examining public expenditure I believe it is essential that we have critical regard to its effect upon unemployment generally, and not only on unemployment among young people.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the proposed cuts in public spending take place it is inevitable that there will be a substantial increase in unemployment? What steps is he prepared to take to resist that situation?

Mr. Booth: As I have indicated to the House, I am concerned that we should examine the measures that we are now running to deal with the special problems of high unemployment, with a view to introducing measures that may be more effective or that will supplement the present measures.

Mr. Prior: What reply does the right hon. Gentleman give to the parents of a young teacher leaving teacher training college this summer who cannot get a job—one of 20,000 who cannot get a job—bearing in mind that the Government know perfectly well that they could employ them if they allowed the price of school meals to be increased by 5p for each meal?

Mr. Booth: If they put that proposition to me on that basis, I should say that if parents had to pay more for school meals, the demand for other goods and services would thereby be reduced, which would also have an effect on employment.

Training

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to improve training opportunities for employees able only to undertake part-time employment after training.

Mr. John Grant: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that courses are available under the Training Opportunities Scheme to people able to undertake only part-time employment, provided there are reasonable prospects of employment following training.

Mr. Ovenden: Is my hon. Friend aware that in some areas the Training Services Agency is refusing courses to women because family circumstances do not allow them to work full-time after training? Will he make it clear to the agency that the Government are entirely opposed to that form of discrimination? If insufficient courses are available, we should be expanding the training system rather than placing the burden of its inadequacy on one section of the community.

Mr. Grant: The aim of the Training Opportunities Scheme is to provide adults over 19 with intensive training so that they can change careers or improve their existing qualifications and re-enter the employment sector after a lengthy absence. There is no exclusion for married women for example, who are available for part-time work only. However, opportunities for part-time work vary considerably from area to area. The Training Services Agency has to take a realistic view in a situation in which it


is clear that local opportunities for part time work are minimal. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, I think he will find that there is a helpful reply.

Mr. Marten: Are there still vacancies in the Training Opportunities Scheme, or is the scheme full up already?

Mr. Grant: I understand that there are still vacancies.

Skillcentres

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for expanding the number of skillcentres in the Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Hampshire and Wiltshire areas.

Mr. Golding: The Manpower Services Commission informs me that a new skill-centre with 135 training places is being built for the Training Services Agency at Reading, and another with 140 places is being built at Swindon. The agency hopes that training at both skillcentres will start by the end of 1977. In addition, the skillcentre at Slough is being expanded to provide 329 places.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment in my constituency is running close to the national average? Does he appreciate that the waiting time for the skillcentre in Slough is now so long advanced that a reserve waiting list has had to be introduced at the job centre? Will the hon. Gentleman put pressure on his Department to get the skillcentres at Reading and Swindon brought forward as a matter of great urgency?

Mr. Golding: I do not think that is possible, although I can say that we shall do our best to get them established by the end of 1977. It should be emphasised that these are not the only establishments at which TOPS courses are provided; they are also provided in colleges of further education. I am certain that the Training Services Agency will note the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Dykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give consideration to the skillcentres in the Greater London area, bearing in mind that whilst the outer London boroughs have had an easy time on the unemploy-

ment front so far, a much more disturbing longer-term trend is now setting in, of semi-permanent unemployment? In the London borough of Harrow, for example, the nearest skillcentre is at Perivale, with far too limited opportunities.

Mr. Golding: I have recently visited a skillcentre in London. I have discussed expansion in London with the Training Services Agency.

Job Creation and Saving

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs have been created and saved by Government measures in the last 12 months.

Mr. Booth: As at 2nd July 1976 the Temporary Employment Subsidy Scheme, first announced on 18th August 1975, had saved 73,000 jobs and the job creation programme of the Manpower Services Commission, first announced on 24th September 1975, had created 20,000 jobs. Further applications are being considered under both schemes covering about 50.000 additional jobs. These are the measures of direct concern to my Department and to the Manpower Services Commission. In addition, many more jobs have been saved or created by government assistance to industry under the Industry Act or through the National Enterprise Board.

Mr. Watkinson: I welcome those figures. However, does my right hon. Friend accept that until we get a major economic upturn, there will be a need for his Department to provide selective measures to improve employment? Will he consider the proposal in the TUC "Economic Review" for a job creation subsidy by which employers in areas of higher than national unemployment receive a subsidy if they take on labour?

Mr. Booth: Certainly, in the light of the figures announced today, I accept that there is a need to consider a wide range of additional alternative measures. We are considering the possibility of aiding particular areas, but my own view is that the level of unemployment is too high in every region and, therefore, I am not inclined as a first preference to go for measures selective as between regions. I prefer to continue the attempt to reduce the level of unemployment in every region.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Secretary of State accept that, although these various measures are welcome, they are only a drop in the bucket compared with the appalling unemployment figures, which suggest that the whole position is totally out of control? The Secretary of State and the Minister of State have suggested that new measures are coming forward. When will they come, and will the Secretary of State undertake to announce them before the House rises for the recess?

Mr. Booth: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in this subject. There are two ways of examining it. Anyone who is involved in schemes that prevent up to 250,000 people from being in the dole queue is not inclined to look at that as a drop in the bucket, but, seen against a background of 1,400,000 unemployed, one can take the view that the measures are inadequate. I hope to make an announcement soon.

Work Permits

Mr. George Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether work permits issued have been reduced in the light of the current high levels of unemployment.

Mr. John Grant: The number of first permits and permissions issued in 1975 was 30,078, which was about 9 per cent. lower than in 1974. Only the first quarter's figures are presently available for 1976. It would be wrong to draw longer-term conclusions from one quarter's figures, but it is encouraging that they show a drop of about 23 per cent. over the same period in 1975.

Mr. Rodgers: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Will he elaborate a little by providing information on the number of people who have come over from Common Market countries and secured residence and employment in this country?

Mr. Grant: EEC nationals have the right to enter and to look for and take work without a work permit. If they want to stay for more than six months to work, they need a residence permit from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The figures for the issue of residents permits are as follows: 6,402

for 1973; 5,769 for 1974 and 4,680 for 1975. My hon. Friend can see that the annual figures have declined over that period. That is consistent with the falling trend in the number of work permits issued for people from EEC countries in the years immediately preceding our entry into the Community.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will the Minister give us the other side? How many people are leaving this country to get jobs abroad? Are we not losing many of our best people because they are disenchanted with the Government's policies?

Mr. Grant: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Ward: Does my hon. Friend think that it is fair to those who are refused work permits that girls from non-EEC countries coming to work here as au pair girls may be able to slip into full employment after a few months, to the detriment of those who want to come here under the normal procedures?

Mr. Grant: That should not happen. If my hon. Friend will supply evidence of that, we shall look into it.

School Leavers (Industrial Recruitment)

Mr. Walter Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a special appeal to industry to recruit above its normal establishment of school leavers in an endeavour to reduce the high level of unemployment among this group.

Mr. Booth: The Government's measures to help unemployed school leavers already draw to a considerable extent on the co-operation of employers. But I shall bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Mr. Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is degrading, depressing and soul-destroying for youngsters who leave school in the expectation of starting work to finish up on the dole? Will not this have a damaging effect upon them throughout the whole of their working life? Will the Minister please make a special appeal to industrialists to take more than their normal establishment of school leavers to help to alleviate this problem?

Mr. Booth: I agree with all my hon. Friend says about the experience of young people leaving school and finding that no jobs are available. I assure him that in many of the measures we have introduced we have paid particular attention to the requirements of the unemployed school leavers—in the recruitment subsidy scheme, strengthening the careers service, the job creation programme, the community industry scheme and additional training measures. I am considering initiatives involving to a greater extent than ever before the support of private employer's and industrialists generally in alleviating the problem of the unemployed school leaver.

Mr. Bulmer: Will the Secretary of State tell the House why he continues to resist the proposal that companies prepared to train school leavers in skills vital to the country should be allowed to recover in full the cost of training?

Mr. Booth: At present the Training Services Agency funds a considerable amount of training in employers' premises. But it is not possible for the Training Services Agency under the present arrangements to guarantee to cover every vacant place that an employer can provide for training. We are seeking to construct a scheme that will provide opportunities for unemployed school leavers on a much wider basis than the availability of craft training places.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Brittan: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 20th July.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet this morning and I shall be holding further meetings throughout the day.

Mr. Brittan: Will the Prime Minister tell those of his colleagues whom he meets today that their continual public squabbling about the £1,000 million spending cuts—coupled with the Government's inexcusable delay in announcing them—is causing immense damage to confidence in the pound and that, when the cuts are finally announced, his colleagues must not run off whining about

them to the Lobby, but must either give them their fullhearted support or get out of the Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's help, but I do not need it, thank you very much. As to public squabbling—unless the hon. Gentleman has bugged the Cabinet room —I can promise him that our discussions are extremely amicable, even though they are keenly argued. I do not think that there is any inexcusable delay in taking decisions on cuts that will begin to apply on 6th April 1977.

Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of us regret that the discussions have been so amicable? We are all deeply concerned about unemployment and feel that further cuts in public expenditure could lead not to a decrease in unemployment, as is suggested, but to an increase in unemployment. Will my right hon. Friend explain whether the argument is about the switch of resources or the confidence of foreign bankers?

The Prime Minister: It is a threefold argument about the use of resources after April 1977, the financing of public expenditure, for which we are having to borrow about £1 in £4, and confidence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] There is nothing new about those figures. They have been going on for some time, started by Lord Barber, as everyone knows. We are now trying to get some order into the situation.
In addition to the discussions that we are having with a view to reducing expenditure next year, the problem we have to face—which is causing as much trouble as anything—is the tremendous number of new bids that have been put in that have to be taken into account. I have seen a figure that has been widely bandied about, but it is a different figure.
There is a real dilemma with unemployment. If we reduce public expenditure, in the short run it will increase unemployment; no one can deny that. If we do not reduce public expenditure, we shall have to consider, and others will consider, whether we can finance the continued level of public expenditure. If we are unable to do so, that will create even higher unemployment.

Mrs. Thatcher: Does the Prime Minister recollect that it is exactly 10 years


to the day that the then Labour Prime Minister put the famous financial crisis measures of 20th July 1966 before the House, when the right hon. Gentleman himself was Chancellor of the Exchequer? Bearing in mind that borrowers cannot be choosers, and that some cuts are therefore inevitable, why is he taking so long to bring his proposals before the House? Is he aware that his procrastination makes his predecessor look positively decisive?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady still does not seem to have hoisted in the point that these expenditure proposals take effect from April 1977. We are discussing next year's financial proposals and not this year's. When the expenditure cuts were made on 20th July 1966, they took effect immediately. We have constantly refused to take panic decisions in relation to this year. There is no need to do so, because the deficit is capable of being financed and there is no pressure on resources. To do otherwise, as Opposition Members seem to be pressing us to do, would be to create an absurd situation, which I would not tolerate. What we are concerned with is next year. That is the year we are discussing.

Mrs. Thatcher: Why is a decision when unemployment was below 1 million a panic decision but a decision when unemployment is above 1½ million not a panic decision?

The Prime Minister: I do not know to what the right hon. Lady is referring. What we are discussing is next year's estimates. We are discussing what the likely impact on resources will be and whether we can finance the borrowing, and these kinds of issue. These matters deserve consideration. Indeed, we have time to discuss them and thrash them out, and that is what we are doing. I have already told the House that I hope that we can produce a statement before we adjourn for the Summer Recess. That is still my intention, as far as we can do it, but there is no reason for the right hon. Lady to suggest that there is any need for a panic decision or an urgent decision on these matters when, by thrashing them out, we can get agreement. On the whole, I prefer to carry a Labour Government through this because I would not trust the right hon. Lady.

BELGIUM

Mr. Steen: asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to pay an official visit to Belgium.

The Prime Minister: I have just been to Belgium for the European Council meeting on 12th and 13th July. I have no plans to go there again in the immediate future.

Mr. Steen: Does the Prime Minister agree that although much of Belgium is below sea level it is morally and politically above this country in that it recognises the extent of its social problems and the importance of giving unemployed school leavers the opportunity to create their own work for the benefit of the community and others, rather than letting them hang around on street corners with nothing to do but draw the dole? In order to re-establish the detente with the Opposition, will the Prime Minister lean on the Chief Patronage Secretary in order to expedite the passage through this House of my Bill, aimed at restoring dignity to the unemployed, and in order to give them the opportunity to make Britain great again?

The Prime Minister: I have very great respect for the people of Belgium but I do not think that they would claim to be morally or politically superior to us if they looked at some of the problems of their own country. I shall not go into that today.
As for the position of young people, I listened to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment a moment ago. Everyone agrees about that. I do not think that in that respect Belgium holds much comfort for us, because I notice that the seasonally-adjusted percentage rate of unemployment for Belgium is 8·8 per cent.—there must be rather a lot of street corners in Belgium where that is happening—whereas our unemployment rate has not, fortunately, yet reached that. I hope it never will. I notice, finally, that the hon. Gentleman, in pursuit of his aims, is still pressing us for more public expenditure, at a time when I get points put by every one of his hon. Friends that I reduce it.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: In view of the talks being conducted in Brussels on the fishing industry, will the Prime Minister agree to give top priority to the present plight of this industry? Is the Prime Minister listening to the voices of the official organisations within the fishing industry, in their demand for a 50-mile exclusive limit, or has he turned a deaf ear to this legitimate and reasonable claim?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is aware that the matter is being discussed in Brussels today. I have a telegram from a number of fishermen protesting at the fact that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has to return to this country today and leave these discussions. I think that the responsibility for that is firmly placed on the Opposition. The Foreign Secretary has been placed in an absurd position. I tell the hon. Lady that I do not think that this will be decisive. As she knows, the interim arrangements last until 1982, and I have every confidence that we shall be able to renegotiate something arising out of the 200-mile limit.

Mr. Dalyell: Without nagging the Prime Minister, may I ask whether, in Brussels, he will consider the vexed question of the siting of the nomadic European Assembly which, alas, is one of his burdens?

The Prime Minister: I said the other day that I was grateful that it was not my responsibility. Of course, we have a partial responsibility for the siting of the European Assembly. I would much prefer to see it established in one capital. At the present time, however, I must tell my hon. Friend that I am not willing to recommend the expenditure of more money in order to achieve that.

ECONOMIC POLICY (CHANCELLOR'S SPEECH)

Mr. George Gardiner: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Newcastle on 3rd July on the subject of public spending cuts represents the Government's policy.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech on econo-

mic policy by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 3rd July 1976 at Newcastle to the TUC Northern Region Council represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Mr. Gardiner: The Prime Minister concedes that the effect of spending cuts is to increase unemployment in the short run. How does he answer the charge that if only he had exercised some discipline over public spending earlier the short run might now be nearing its end?

The Prime Minister: The increases in the levels of public expenditure have been extremely beneficial to a great many people. The fact that, for example, old-age pensions will be nearly doubled by November is something for which the House should give a great deal of credit. I think that it was right to do this, especially at a time when our resources were not fully used. We are taking steps to redress the situation for next year.

Mr. Kinnock: Is my right hon. Friend familiar with the view that the cuts now being proposed have absolutely nothing to do with resources and everything to do with business confidence abroad? If that is the case, how many more cuts will be required in order to try to achieve the unachievable and satiate the insatiable?

The Prime Minister: I am familiar with that view, and I think that there is some degree of truth in it. However, as I explained in answer to an earlier question, from the Leader of the Opposition, there is a combination of factors here, and different weights apply to them at different times. At the moment I do not think that the resources situation is the vital one, although we are taking into account the fact that manufacturing industry seems to be expanding at a rate of about 8 per cent. a year, which is very fast, and as we are considering next year's public expenditure, that is an important matter. But other factors do come into the question from time to time; I do not deny that.

Mr. Adley: As there are today 1,463,465 human signs of the total and abject failure of the Government's economic policy, will the Prime Minister make up his mind either to chuck in the sponge


to his Left wing and have a totally Socialist State or withdraw these irrelevant and damaging Bills currently before the House, so that, for once, the world may get the impression that the Labour Party is prepared to put nation before party?

The Prime Minister: I am glad to be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman that since this Government took office growing respect has been shown for this country by people abroad. The fact that the trade unions have given their assent to the wage agreement has had a very great impact, together with our determination to get public expenditure fully under control. I promise the hon. Gentleman, from my experience and contacts on these matters, that what is being done by the Labour Government is regarded as much more important than the bleatings of people like him.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Mr. Maxwell Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to put to you a point of order, of which I have given you notice, concerning today's proceedings on the first Government Order of the Day.
On 10th December 1962, your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster, ruled as follows:
… if it be possible for the view to be taken that this Bill is a Hybrid Bill it ought to go to the examiners."—[Official Report, 10th December 1962; Vol. 669, c. 45.]
Not only is it possible to take the view that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill is indeed a hybrid Bill. You have yourself ruled that prima facie it is a hybrid Bill. Though the House can, by resolution, specifically set aside a ruling by Mr. Speaker, at no time since Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster ruled as quoted has the House resolved to set aside that ruling.
Until now, the House has not proceeded further with the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill since you ruled it to be prima facie hybrid. You were therefore entitled to assume that the House would either proceed in accordance with the ruling of your predecessor or pass a resolution setting it aside before attempting to proceed in a manner which defies it.
Unless and until the House resolves to set aside that ruling, it is not proper to put to the House a Question nor to accept a motion for debate which defies that ruling. The motion on today's Order Paper headed
Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill (Allocation of Time)
has the effect of contravening Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster's ruling. I submit that it would not therefore be proper for the Chair to allow this motion to be moved nor the Question on it put without a specific resolution being first passed by the House to set aside Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster's ruling.
Secondly, I can find no precedent for the Question being put on an allocation of time motion which restricts debate on a hybrid Bill without the Standing Orders Committee, of which the Chairman of Ways and Means is Chairman, having recommended a suspension of Standing Orders. The effect of so doing is that, having deprived the petitioners of the opportunity of appearing in support of their petitions, the House would itself be prevented from giving proper consideration to the Bill on the Report stage and Third Reading. Without the safeguard of a recommendation from the Standing Orders Committee that Standing Orders can safely be dispensed with, it would be unwise to allow a Question to be put that its own proceedings should be truncated.
Again, Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the propriety of the House having put to it by the Chair an allocation of time motion on a hybrid Bill after the Standing Orders Committee has reported, it is an undeniable fact that no such report has yet been received by the House from the Standing Orders Committee, and until it is received I submit that this is an additional reason why, on precedent, the Chair should be unwilling to call the mover of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill (Allocation of Time) motion.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), with customary courtesy, gave me notice in writing of the exact points that he has raised, and this has given me an opportunity to give consideration to the question.
I do not question the accuracy of his quotation from a ruling given by one of my predecessors. However, I must point out that the present circumstances are very different. In the case of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, the House itself has decided, on 27th May, that the Standing Orders which may apply to the Bill should be dispensed with and that no examination of their application should be made. It follows from this that the Bill does not need to be referred to the examiners.
The hon. Gentleman suggested further that the House ought not to proceed with the allocation of time motion without a recommendation from the Standing Orders Committee that the Standing Orders applicable to the Bill should be dispensed with, but, for the reason I have already given, it follows, too, that the Standing Orders Committee has no responsibility for considering whether Standing Orders should or should not be dispensed with.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mrs. Chalker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely:
the alarming increase in today's unemployment figures.
Both sides of the House have registered shock and dismay at the 0·6 per cent. overall increase, but above all we register most dismay at the 41·2 per cent. increase in unemployment amongst school leavers.
This state of affairs can only reveal the total lack of control over unemployment and the economic situation by the Government. Behind every one of the 1,463,456 unemployed, there is a story of untold misery, and behind every one of the 209,037 unemployed school leavers there is the start of a spiral which this Government know, or seem to know, no way of halting. In my opinion, the storm raging outside now will be nothing compared with the storm that the country will raise if we do not discuss and put right the situation that besets us. I hope that the House will agree to deal with this urgent matter under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, in order to discuss a specific and important matter that she thinks should have urgent consideration, namely:
the alarming increase in today's unemployment figures.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Standing Order but to give no reason for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the representations which the hon. Lady has made, but I have to rule that her submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit her application to the House.

FINANCE BILL (PROCEDURE)

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth), you said that if the Finance Bill should receive a Third Reading you would give your ruling today whether you were able to certify that it was a Money Bill. In view of that undertaking, I wonder whether you are able to give your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: As my memory goes, I did not say that I would give a ruling. There is a statutory obligation upon me to certify whether it is a Money Bill or no, but I can tell the House that I have consulted today the two assessors of the Bill, chosen by the House, and have decided to sign the Bill as a Money Bill.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: In order to save the time of the House, unless there is objection I propose to put together the Questions on the two motions relating to Statutory Instruments.

Ordered
That the draft State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Regulations 1976, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft British Nuclear Fuels Limited (Payment and Loan Limit) Order 1976, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Foot.]

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT RESOURCES

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the local co-ordination of agencies related to youth employment; and for connected purposes.
There can be no day more appropriate for the House to consider a measure relating to youth unemployment than the day on which we have received the monthly unemployment figures. The picture that they reveal is frightening. Unemployment among young people has doubled since last month and is now running at one-seventh of the total unemployed.
In some areas the rate of unemployment is higher than the national average. In my area of the Lothians, the careers service has been notified of fewer than 300 vacancies this summer although it is expecting 8,000 young people to leave school. Less than 10 per cent. of school leavers in the Lothians will be able to find work this summer. I do not propose to labour the general picture because Question Time has shown that most of us are aware of it and that both sides of the House are seized of the need to respond to the problem.
We are not faced with just a short-term crisis. For a decade there has been an underlying trend towards higher unemployment among young people. Except for the year in which the school leaving age was raised there has been a higher increase in unemployment among school leavers in every year since 1968 when productivity bargaining took away the untrained and unskilled posts which are the first work experience of most young people.
The burden of this unemployment falls particularly on the unqualified young school leaver. For the half of the school population leaving school with no paper certificate the range of jobs available is increasingly narrow because of the high rate of unemployment, which means that employers can be increasingly selective. Three years ago no qualifications were needed to be a plumber's assistant. Today three "O" grades are required. Three years ago three "O" grades were re-

quired to be a bank clerk. Today three higher grades are required.
We face a problem of structural unemployment offering fewer prospects to all young people. The future is bleak for those who leave school without qualifications. This is happening to a generation which was led through the media to have higher expectations. There will be bitter disappointment if they are faced with unemployment which could in turn create damage to our society.
The trouble is that the problem is regarded as a short-term crisis. As many hon. Members demonstrated, we have responded with short-term measures. The criticisms of the job creation programme primarily arise because it is a short-term crash programme and because it has led to training schemes which do not necessarily lead to long-term prospects. We have approached the matter from a short-term angle. Perhaps we should look to Canada, from which we took the idea of the job creation programme, and where one-third of the jobs created under the programme turn into permanent job opportunities.
My second point is that because we have responded to the problem as a short-term crisis, the short-term measures that have been introduced are being administered on an ad hoc basis by a variety of Government agencies. There are eight Government Departments and statutory agencies involved in administering the special measures that have been introduced in the last 18 months. That has created a bewildering range of Government agencies involved in the one problem. It gives rise to confusion.
The sponsor of a job creation programme may well find that he has to deal with up to four separate Government agencies. That experience can be frustrating. It hinders the development of a co-ordinated approach to the problem. Most hon. Members have experienced an unemployed constituent at the surgery who has been promoted through the TOPS scheme only to find that had the TSA consulted the local office of the Employment Services Agency it would have discovered that there were no jobs available for the skill which he had acquired. That does not illustrate the best use of limited resources. Because of cuts in public expenditure, some local


authorities are reducing their commitments to vocational education and sometimes in the same area the TSA is under-spending its allocation.
I am not naive enough to suggest that we can transfer resources from one area to another but nevertheless we should at least have the machinery whereby the TSA can be informed whether there has been a shortfall of provision by the local authority and the machinery to provide a stimulus to step in and fill the breach in that locality.
My third argument is that the machinery must be wider than that involving the Government agencies alone. It should also include the trade unions and, in particular, voluntary organisations which have a part to play in terms of job creation. One of the most disappointing aspects of the programme is that most of the schemes have come from local authorities in some way or another with the local authority acting as sponsor. We need machinery to provide the stimulus to other groups in the community, such as voluntary organisations which have a rôle to play and which must be administered locally by those who know the needs and demands of the area.
I have outlined the three main weaknesses in our provision which my Bill seeks to remedy. It would do so by providing for the creation of local manpower development agencies, empowered to bring together Government agencies working on unemployment and young people at a local level with industry and voluntary organisations. My proposals follow closely the recommendations of the Young Volunteer Force booklet published last month which drew much of its experience from advising many voluntary organisations in the job creation programme.
It will be music to the ears of my Front Bench to know that my Bill does not require any further resources. It is not as important to increase resources as it is to provide effective machinery to ensure the proper use of those public and private resources which are already available.
I am aware that the Bill is being introduced late in the Session and that it does not have a bright hope of reaching the statute book—although I was encouraged by the workmanlike attitude of the House

during Private Members' business on Friday. The job creation programme has been budgeted to come to an end in the autumn of 1977. Someone somewhere in Whitehall is now thinking of what will take its place. It is therefore important that I should have this opportunity to try to influence the thinking and to influence that decision-making process. It is also important that I should have the opportunity to provide a focus for the representations of the many organisations outside the House which have taken an interest in the subject and which would also like to influence that decision-making process. I hope that the House will grant me leave to publish such a Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) has made an interesting speech. The subject of youth employment and the agencies connected with it is more important than the subject that we are to discuss in a few minutes—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker: Order. The occupant of the Chair now knows that it is not a point of order.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We have a lot of work to do today.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I was simply going to ask, Mr. Speaker, that we should have time to debate the Bill and have more than one speaker on the subject. The reason—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that on a Ten-Minute Bill hon. Members may only oppose the measure or let it go through, and that is the end of it.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I know, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am glad to hear that.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You did not give me much chance to say what I was going to say. A new situation has arisen. The word "Bill" apparently now means "Bills", so that the rule which applies—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not waste the time of the House like this.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robin F. Cook, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Bryan Davies, Mr. Robert-Kilroy Silk, Mr. Clement Freud, Mr. George Reid, Dr. Keith Hampson and Mr. Ted Fletcher.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT (RESOURCES)

Mr. Robin F. Cook accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the local co-ordination of agencies related to youth employment; and for connected purposes; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15th October and to be printed. [Bill 207.]

ALLOCATION OF TIME MOTIONS (PROCEDURE)

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a question of procedure involving today's business. Yesterday you made it quite clear that you would be able to call a Division only on the motion under discussion, on the main Question, when the knife fell. Today you have in your wisdom selected quite a number of amendments in the names of my right hon. Friends and

myself. We have on the Order Paper today a procedure motion which, had the Government wished, could have been put in what I would best describe as the live section of the Order Paper. This would have given the House an opportunity not to discuss but to decide those amendments which you have selected.
The Leader of the House was given notice of our intention to put down that motion in the hope that he might react in an appropriate fashion. He has done nothing of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman is very fond of saying that it is for the House to decide such matters. We are very disappointed, but not very surprised, that once again he is denying the House the opportunity to make such a decision on these very important issues.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I realise, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter which only you can consider, but, as a general guide to the conduct of business, is it not spurious to raise the question of an amendment, since obviously the only time an amendment can be out is when the Question can be put? The yah-booing of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) about this question at this stage is counter-productive.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) understands that I am limited by the rules of the House.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

3.56 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Bill:—

Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolutions as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than Friday 23rd July.

(3) The resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, and whether or not the resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Dilatory Motions

2. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

3.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Bill for one hour after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period under this paragraph.

(3) If an allotted day for the Bill is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under this paragraph, and the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Com-

mittee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall also be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

4. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill, or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings.

CONCLUSION OF PROCEEDINGS

5.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(b) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If at Seven o'clock on an allotted Day, any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.

If a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over to Seven o'clock on an allotted Day, or to any later time under sub-paragraph (3) above, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this


Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day at any hour falling after the beginning of the Proceedings on that Motion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

6.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and the last foregoing paragraph shall apply as if the Proceedings were Proceedings on the Bill on an allotted Day.

(2) If on an allotted Day on which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time, no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

7. Nothing in this Order or in a Resolution of the Business Committee shall—

(a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

8.—(l) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consolidation or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted Day, no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

9. In this Order—
'allotted day' means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the Proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day,
'the Bill' means the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill;
'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Mr. Speaker: I wish to inform the House that I have been asked by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) whether I should be willing to select a manuscript amendment in his name, which differs slightly in form from the amendment now on the Order Paper as Amendment No. 4. I have decided that I am willing to do that, and if opportunity arises I shall call the hon. Gentleman or one of his hon. Friends to move the manuscript amendment, which is as follows: in paragraph 5(1)(b), leave out from first 'Member' to end of subparagraph (1)(b) and insert:
'and which shall have been selected by Mr. Speaker'.

Mr. Foot: It is only right that the facts behind the motion should be recited, as they have been somewhat swamped in the controversies of a few weeks ago. The Bill had 58 sittings in Committee, giving a total of 141 hours of discussion there. Taking into account also the Second Reading, of about six hours, and the two days of procedural discussions on the Bill, which were devoted primarily to procedural questions but also partly covered questions of merit and substance in the Bill, we see that it had a total of 159 hours' discussion. But the principal claim I make on this aspect is based on the 58 sittings in Committee, which nobody could call a small allocation of time for the Committee discussion of the Bill.
We now propose that there should be three days for discussion of the Report stage and Third Reading. I believe that that is also a substantial allocation of time. It is slightly more than the time which it was expected would be allocated to Report and Third Reading when we were proceeding to the Report stage originally and when the discussions took place on the matters raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). [Interruption.] I believe that that was the general understanding in many quarters. At any rate, at that period it looked as if the likelihood was —I place it no higher—that we should have the Report stage and Third Reading in about two and a half days. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I could state it much more highly.
I believe that all hon. Members who examine the matter fairly will see that what we propose in the motion is a substantial allocation of time. Nobody


could claim that the Bill has been rushed through the House without adequate time for discussion. Compared with the time allocated to other Bills which might be considered comparable, the time proposed in the motion is very reasonable. I shall come later to figures which cover an even wider period.

Mr. Tom King: I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman gets his evidence about two and a half days. He claims that three days is reasonable. How many Government amendments were involved in the Report stage? Since the selection has already been made by Mr. Speaker, may I ask how many debates have already been selected by Mr. Speaker involving Government amendments?

Mr. Foot: I stated the matter as moderately as I possibly could. It was the assumption on this side of the House at any rate that the time required for adequate discussion of the Bill on Report and Third Reading was something like two and a half days. I think that most people who had followed proceedings would have seen that that was a reasonable allocation.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: Mr. Nigel Lawson (Blaby) rose—

Mr. Foot: I will answer the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) first, if the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) will permit me.
On the second point, there are, of course, a considerable number of Government amendments. Many of them—my right hon. and hon. Friends will deal with the details of them—related to proposals made on behalf of the Opposition. Many of them were designed to meet much of the case that was put in the Committee stage. On Report, with Bills of this consequence, there are many amendments put down by the Opposition and many amendments from the Government, which may be accepting, or going far towards accepting, proposals which have come from the Opposition. That was the case in this Bill, as in many other previous Bills, but it does not alter the comparisons I was seeking to make.

Mr. Lawson: If the right hon. Gentleman says that three days is what would have been needed anyway, why is he introducing the guillotine motion? Further to that, is it not totally dis-

ingenuous to pretend that three days ending at 11 o'clock is the same as three days which would have been open-ended and which we should have had if it were not for the guillotine motion?

Mr. Foot: The original assumption on this side of the House—and there were others who concurred with it—was not three days but two and a half days, and under this timetable motion we are allocating a longer period than two and a half days. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman states, that if there were no allocation of time order it is possible that some of the proceedings might have been longer. That is true in some cases, but that has also been taken into account in that a longer period is being allocated under this allocation of time motion than had originally been assumed.
I believe that no one in any quarter of the House, looking back fairly at what has happened over many previous Bills, could say that the allocation we are making for the further discussion of the Bill is unfair, just as no one could possibly claim that the time allocated in Standing Committee was a small amount.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West)rose—

Mr. Foot: I will give way to the hon. Member when I have dealt with the comparison, if I may, so that hon. Members can see the position in perspective.
I should like to compare what is being done by the Government in regard to the allocation of time with what was done by a previous Conservative Administration. The charge against us is that we are censoring Parliament and suppressing free speech. Wild charges of that sort have been made against us. The comparison I seek to make is with what happened in the case of three Bills which were guillotined in 1961–62 under a Conservative Government. The Conservative Government then guillotined five Bills during the same Session. I agree that it was not five in a day but it was five in a Session, which amounts to the same thing. From the point of view of abbreviating the opportunity for debate, the comparison with an earlier Administration, which also guillotined five Bills in a Session, is a perfectly fair one.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Kinross and West Perthshire)rose—

Mr. Foot: I have already indicated my intention to give way to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack), but I should like first to put these figures before the House. There were 58 sittings in Committee on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. The Transport Bill of the Conservative Government, in the 1961–62 Session, contained 91 clauses. That Bill was guillotined by the Government after 23 sittings in Committee. The Housing (Scotland) Bill, with 37 clauses, was guillotined after 13 sittings in Committee. The Pipe-lines Bill, with 63 clauses, was guillotined after 15 sittings in Committee.
There we have three Bills that were guillotined by a Conservative Government in one Session. Two of them were longer Bills even than the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. If we add together the time allowed by that Conservative Government for those three Bills, we find that this Labour Government have in fact allowed more time in Committee for this one Bill than the Conservative Government allowed for three Bills—

Mr. Cormack: Mr. Cormackrose—

Mr. Foot: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I have not forgotten him. In the face of that first fact, to say that we are suppressing free speech in dealing with this Bill is clearly absurd.

Mr. Cormack: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman instead consider what is happening today in the light of his own speeches and antics during the 1970 Parliament? Has he changed his mind? Where was the road to Damascus?

Mr. Foot: I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall not seek to escape the point he makes about some of my own past speeches, but I will deal with it in my own order, if I may.
Wild charges have been made in many quarters, not only against myself but against the Labour Government, of suppressing free speech and curtailing the proper amount of time which should be allocated for discussion of Bills in Parliament. These are serious charges, but they cannot be fairly levelled by Conservatives against a Labour Government.
It might be thought that I selected a particular period which was advantageous to my case. In fact I selected a year which stood out clearly, when five Bills were guillotined in the same Session by a Conservative Government. But, taking the past 25 years, there have been considerably more guillotines imposed by Conservative Governments than by Labour Governments. Nineteen Bills have been guillotined by Conservative Governments and 10 Bills have been guillotined by Labour Governments during that period.
It is also relevant to compare the time allowed in Committee before guillotines were imposed. The charge against the Labour Government—and against me in particular—is that we have rushed to impose the guillotine. Far from that being the case, over these 25 years the average number of hours allowed in Committee for the consideration of Conservative Bills has been 39, whereas for Labour Bills the average number of hours of debate in Committee has been 61. En other words, about 50 per cent. more time has been allowed by Labour Governments for the consideration of Bills that were eventually guillotined than was allowed by Conservative Governments.
In the face of facts of that nature, it is not only absurd for hon. Members of this House, who know something about how business is conducted here, but even more absurd for people outside, who perhaps know less—or wish to know less—of these matters, to pretend that in some way or other this Labour Government or other Labour Governments have been seeking to impose guillotines in a frivolous or shocking manner. We have been much more reluctant to impose guillotines than were the former Tory Government. The same applies to this situation this year.

Mr. F. A. Burden: The real issue is that the President of the Council now proposes to force through five guillotines. He stated that in 1962 the Conservative Government guillotined the Transport Bill, the Housing (Scotland) Bill and the Pipe-lines Bill. Will he ask his right hon. Friend how many amendments there will be to this Bill on Report? As the Minister referred to three Bills, will he tell us how many amendments there were to those Bills on Report?

Mr. Foot: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not know the exact figure. I know that the matter is important. It will help to support my case. I did not quote one Bill, the debate on which took place on the Floor of the House and not in Committee. That was the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill. There were large numbers of amendments to that Bill. The comparison does nothing to suit the case.

Mr. Peter Rost: Why did not the Labour Party try to chuck it out?

Mr. Foot: We tried to chuck it out, just as the Opposition are trying to chuck out this Bill. I do not complain that they are trying to chuck it out. The Government have a right to take precautionary measures, just as the Tory Government also took precautionary measures. The difference between us is that we have resorted to the guillotine for the five Bills after a much longer period than did the Tory Government.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that four of the five Bills were taken on two separate days and that it is not true to say that more than one Bill has been taken on more than one day?

Mr. Foot: That is correct.

Mr. William Whitelaw: Would the Minister say today that he and his right hon. Friends wished that their efforts to stop the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill in 1962 had been successful?

Mr. Foot: I do. I have never changed my mind about the matter. I took the same view then. This is a different question, but I have given the answer for which the right hon. Gentleman asked. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is here, as I should like to turn to him next. I am extremely gratified at his presence. I shall be grateful for any intervention he likes to make on this motion rather than on other motions, on which his last interruption might have been more appropriate.
Let me come to the question of principle that underlies these guillotines. These are matters of degree, choice, and taste in some respects. Labour Govern-

ments have shown much more distaste for guillotines than have Tory Governments and have demonstrated much less readiness to resort to them. Any Member of Parliament who has been in the House for any length of time and heard these guillotine debates will agree that it is impossible to make an absolute law one way or the other, to say that there should be no guillotines or that there should always be guillotines. It is a matter of degree.
No one has stated that matter of degree better than the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw). In some cases he states matters better than anyone else. It is true that on one occasion he had the insistence of his Chief Whip at the time, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). Together they devised a formula, but not in the heat of the debate, not in a rowdy guillotine debate or in a quieter debate as we are happily having today. They carefully thought what they should do about the guillotine situation. They wrote a document which they sent to the Select Committee on Procedure of 1970–71. Out of that document the Standing Order under which we are operating faithfully and properly was devised. I was asked by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) to alter it with a fresh decision. That would have been to alter, amongst other matters, the arrangements for these debates that had been proposed by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border and agreed by the Select Committee on Procedure and later by the House.
I come to the statement made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border. I hope that the House will note it carefully. Writing as a result of the recent experiences of that time, the right hon. Gentleman and his Chief Whip at that time stated the matter about as well as it could be stated. They referred to past experience, including the 48 Bills which had been dealt with in Standing Committee from 1968 to 1969 and in 246 sittings, which was an average of five sittings per Bill. Only nine Bills involved more than 10 sittings.
I turn aside for the moment to compare that with the 58 sittings for the Bill that we are discussing. The right


hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said
Many were the subject of voluntary agreements. These figures suggest that on the whole the present arrangements work satisfactorily; but there is a small minority of Bills on which feelings run so high that without a timetable their consideration would not be completed within a reasonable period.
I do not believe that any Member of Parliament would take objection to that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that hon. Members agree.
That does not apply to the vast majority of Bills going through the House. We are operating on that principle in the case of the small minority of Bills on which feelings run so high that without a timetable their consideration would not be completed within a reasonable period.

Mr. J. Grimond: I appreciate the quotation from the document written by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw). The small numbers of Bills to which the Minister referred are usually measures in respect of which there may be allegations of obstruction or filibustering, with the idea of defeating the Bill by obstructing it. Is that the case with the Committee on this Bill? I was not a member of the Committee. It is alleged that there was deliberate obstruction or filibustering during the proceedings?

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), like myself, did not have the duty of attending all the proceedings of the Committee. I shall leave it to my hon. Friend who had that duty, and who carried it out so skilfully and diligently, to reply on that subject.
It is clear that the Opposition want to delay this Bill by every means in their power. They were perfectly entitled to do that. I do not complain about that. It is clear that the Opposition sought to obstruct the Bill. They said as much. I may quote what was said by the former Leader of the Opposition. However, my hon. Friend will be able to do that at length. The then Leader of the Conservative Party, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—not the right hon. Lady—said that the Tories would do everything in their power to resist the

Bill. It was so long ago that the Bill was introduced to the House that the right hon. Member for Sidcup was Leader of the Opposition.
The House should be aware of what was intended and carried out. I am not squealing about it or saying that it is scandalous or improper. I am saying that the Opposition made their position clear, not only in words but in deeds, in 58 sittings. Labour Governments are more reticent about these matters than are Conservative Governments. I have proved that by the facts, and the Government have every right to protect themselves.

Mr. Fairbairn: I am not sure that I follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument. When he objected to guillotine motions on Bills, he mentioned that he did so not as a matter of degree but as a matter of principle. Is he trying to justify his lack of principle by his accusation of lack of principle by his opponents?

Mr. Foot: I am grateful again for that intervention because I had promised to refer to my own comments on these matters. It is not true that I have opposed all guillotine motions introduced into this House or anything of the sort. Indeed, I have supported quite a number of such motions. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] For example, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) introduced her Transport Bill. After many sittings in Committee that measure had to be guillotined, and I defended her action. There were other occasions too. It is true that I have supported guillotines introduced by Labour Governments and opposed those introduced by Tory Governments, but there have been many more such motions introduced by the Tories.
If the Tories are to make accusations against me that I have been inconsistent, I ask them not to read my speeches but, instead, to read the speeches made on this subject by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). I opposed the guillotine motion that was imposed on the European Communities Bill. That was a Bill of a highly constitutional character, and the imposition of the guillotine was of an entirely different character. When I opposed that motion the right hon. and learned Member, who sought to repudiate my words,


looked up what I had said on previous occasions and came across a number of occasions when I had supported a guillotine. He quoted those words against me and asked how I could then oppose a guillotine on that Bill. That only confirms what I said earlier—namely, that there are some occasions when guillotines should be opposed and some occasions when they should be supported.
If I may turn to the attitude of the Liberal Party, its difficulties in this respect are even more emphasised than the difficulties of other parties. On the proceedings on the European Communities Bill, which involved high constitutional principles and when the Conservative Government attempted to force through that measure without a single amendment, the behaviour of the Liberal Party was very strange indeed. Having swallowed that camel, Liberal Members forfeited the right to strain at any gnat in the future. These five matters they surely can swallow at one gulp. However, the Liberal Party has changed its attitude on these matters generally.
I hope that Liberal Members have studied these matters recently, because they do not always look at their own history and sometimes one has to do it for them. It so happens that another precedent for such timetable motions was an Act passed in 1908. The guillotine motion on that occasion was supported first by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, secondly by Mr. Asquith, and thirdly by Mr. Lloyd George—a more glamorous parade even than the one which has recently enchanted the country. Therefore, I hope that Liberals will examine the facts a little more carefully. They will discover that not merely did the Liberals resort to five timetable motions in a single Session, and not merely did they on one occasion introduced two on the same occasion—quite rightly, in my opinion—but they were bitterly attacked by the Conservative Opposition at that time, and that attack was supported by Mr. Balfour. He made exactly the same kind of charges against the Liberals which the Conservative Opposition are now making against me. The Conservatives say that this is a monstrous invasion and erosion of our liberty. That is as bogus

a charge now as it was when they made it those many years ago.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: When the Lord President says that he was against the guillotine on the European Communities Bill because it was a constitutional measure, does he mean that the Government have no intention of introducing a guillotine motion in relation to the similarly constitutional measure involving a Scottish Assembly?

Mr. Foot: Wait and see, if I may use that Asquithian phrase which always comes in so useful. I hope that we shall be able to avoid any timetable motion in dealing with that Bill because, for the reasons I have already stated, I believe that such motions should be avoided if possible. I think that they should be introduced only after considerable opportunity has been allowed for debate. That is the principle on which the Labour Party has operated, and I believe that it is just.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that great opportunity for debate was given on the other constitutional Bill, the European Communities Bill, and that on that occasion he still opposed a timetable motion. Will he undertake similarly to oppose a timetable motion on the devolution Bill, irrespective of how much time is granted?

Mr. Foot: I have already given the answer. If people can understand that answer in Scotland. I they should be able to understand it in Tewkesbury. It was an answer that was intended to be understood by all and sundry.

Mr. Leon Brittan: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, whatever all and sundry may or may nor understand, he has put his defence of the guillotine in this case, and possibly in other cases, on a basis of principle as opposed to expediency? The principle is the difference between the constitutional and the non-constitutional issue. If that is so, surely he can give a clear answer without giving details as to whether in all circumstances he would oppose a guillotine on a devolution Bill.

Mr. Foot: I have already answered that point. I based my answer on the


unexceptionable and excellent statement which I quoted from the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border. I would not like to go back on what he and I said. I accept that principle as the basis of the matter.

Mr. Norman St. John-SteNas: Let me, as one constitutional historian to another, put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. He quoted the words of Mr. Asquith—"Wait and see"—in relation to the devolution Bill, but surely he must know that when Mr. Asquith used those words they were not a reassurance but a threat. He knew that he had in his pocket the promise to create the necessary number of peers. Therefore, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Government have in fact made up their mind to use the guillotine on the devolution Bill, and is he relying on the rather tenuous knowledge of history in the House to conceal his intention?

Mr. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman is speaking as one constitutional lawyer to another, that should rule us both out. Certainly, if he has any quarrel with Mr. Asquith he must fight it out with others, not with myself. I was merely quoting the phrase in its common or garden use, as it has been used over 30 years or more. The historic point produced by the hon. Gentleman does not get the debate any further.
There are some in this House, and some outside, who say—though I do not think so many outside the House will say it—that a guillotine motion on controversial Bills should not be introduced by minority Governments or Governments who do not have substantial majorities. That is a view held by some hon. Members, though I do not know that they often took that view when they sat on the other side of the House. But it is held by some others in other parts of the country. It is held by some people in Fleet Street and might be called the Rees-Mogg doctrine for reducing Parliament to a farce and a nullity. There is no question but that those who would deny the right of the House of Commons to introduce controversial legislation would reduce Parliament to a nullity.
There are many occasions when Governments, even minority Governments—

and this is not a minority Government, as we shall see—introduce controversial measures and have to face the criticism and say "These are the essential measures required for the welfare of the nation. We present them to Parliament, and Parliament must choose." That is what we did in this House in July last year when we introduced the Remuneration and Charges Bill, which was bitterly criticised by some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side, including the Front Bench spokesman, who said that it was a constitutional monstrosity and would not work. They made these charges then, claiming we were acting in a controversial measure. Of course, the fact that we acted in a controversial measure enabled us to overcome some of the economic difficulties of the time. That is an illustration of fact for anyone who may claim that minority Governments, or Governments with small majorities, should not engage in controversial measures. That is a denial of the meaning of Parliament itself.
Those who have made such a suggestion should abandon any such proposition for the future. What is proposed to the House in this debate, and is causing the attacks made on those who have introduced these timetable motions, very late in the day, as is alleged against us by the Conservative Opposition, is a different proposition altogether. Their proposition is not that minority Governments or Governments with a small majority should not be allowed to introduce controversial measures but that a different rule and a different law should apply to Labour Governments from that applied to Conservative Governments. It is quite all right for Conservative Governments to introduce guillotine motions, and they do it on a much bigger scale. Conservative Governments are quite right, we are told, to introduce a guillotine motion when there have been 10, 11, or 12 days in Committee; but for a Labour Government to resort to the guillotine after 58 sittings in Standing Committee ah, that is a monstrous invasion of our liberty!—
The use of such language debases the whole debate in Parliament, especially so when used by the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition the other day in making the accusation that this


was an unprecedented attack on Parliament. My advice to her is to throw away that notebook, particularly when she charges that we are in some way introducing an Iron Curtain system. Such charges are bitterly resented on this side of the House. They will not do any service to the right hon. Lady or her party. A much greater leader than either the present Leader or the immediate past Leader of the Conservative Party made a similar charge against the Labour Party when Mr. Winston Churchill spoke of a Labour Government wanting to introduce a Gestapo. It did not do any injury to us but it did injury even to his great reputation that he should have resorted to such vulgar abuse. That is what we have had from hon. Gentlemen opposite and even from the right hon. Lady in this controversy.
I am asking that in this debate we should argue about the guillotine. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us why they think we have no right to introduce such measures when they so frequently resort to them. Let them tell us why after 58 sittings we should not be able to do what they did after 12 sittings, over comparable periods with comparable Bills. Let them explain all that but let them not use the concentrated arrogance and hypocrisy of the Conservative Party in holding that somehow they have a right to use this Parliament for such purposes and to have no such attacks made upon them as have been made upon us.
We see a Labour Government as having a right and a duty to legislate against any attempts to frustrate us in the end from exercising our rights of legislation, whether in this House or in another place—and, of course, it is a particular illustration of the malice, folly and absurdity into which right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition side have got themselves that when we exercise those ancient rights it is cheating and when they exercise them it is freedom.
We on this side are not surprised that the Conservative Opposition should have so little regard for the liberties of the British people in this House, for most of those liberties had to be fought for, against them. [Interruption.] I would even pray in aid the Liberal Party on that, because of the many rough occasions in this House when the Conserva-

tive Opposition of the day tried to shout down Liberal speakers, as they shouted down Mr. Asquith or tried to deal with Mr. Lloyd George when he imposed a guillotine on the first Bill for old-age pensions. Those are some of the battles which took place in this Parliament in the past, and there should have been those on the Opposition side as well as on this side of the House who understand that a Labour Party protects the liberty of government and people very much better than any others on that side of the House.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has taken up a great deal of the limited time in this debate without adding much to what we knew already, and I am bound to say that he somewhat surprised my hon. and right hon. Friends by talking about other people using extravagant language. That, from him, really was Satan rebuking sin on a quite new scale.
The right hon. Gentleman also made the claim that he was not inconsistent. We never made the charge that he was. We would always admit that he has been perfectly consistent in his voting on guillotine motions. He has voted for every one introduced by a Labour Government and against every one introduced by a Conservative Government.
The right hon. Gentleman sees something very wicked in guillotine motions when he is on the Opposition side of the House. We believe that when the Government resort to measures of this nature they are plunging one more knife into parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Lazy rhetoric.

Mrs. Helene Hayman: Mrs. Helene Hayman (Welwyn and Hatfield)rose—

Mr. Peyton: I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment. Lazy rhetoric! I was very much hoping that the hon. Gentleman might say that, for the words I have just spoken come from the right hon. Gentleman himself as reported in column 153 of the Official Report of 6th March 1961. There is the lazy rhetoric.

Mrs. Hayman: Mrs. Haymanrose—

Mr. Peyton: These motions cover five Bills. I do not doubt that Mr. Speaker's


ruling yesterday was well considered by himself and by those who advise him, but that ruling—that singular can and often does mean plural—will place the House of Commons in some danger, because some Government—maybe this one—in future might feel tempted to put more than one, two or three measures into a three-hour motion, and we shall have virtually the end of any parliamentary freedom at all.

Mrs. Hayman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wonder whether he could help me on the point when he was rebuking the Leader of the House for his inconsistency in supporting guillotine motions only when introduced by a Labour Government. I have not had the misfortune to be here when the Conservative Party has been in power. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman's argument would have more weight if he could tell me that he has opposed guillotine motions introduced by a Conservative Government.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Lady should have done me the courtesy of listening to what I was saying. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to defend himself against the charge of inconsistency. I was merely saying that we had never made that charge. I have not brought up this point: the right hon. Gentleman made it.
Over many years, with great eloquence and seeming conviction, the right hon. Gentleman has denounced the guillotine as a device fatal to debate. On 6th March 1961 he said:
First, I should have thought that everyone who has experience of it would agree that any debate conducted under the shadow of the Guillotine is a dead debate. When the proceedings take place, all the life, fire and cross-examination which should he part of a parliamentary debate is gone. No one will deny that.
The right hon. Gentleman has not always had the regard that he now has for Government timetable motions. Again on 6th March 1961 he said:
If Government timetables go through"—

Mr. Russell Kerr: When are we going to get to the modern bit?

Mr. Peyton: There is nothing very modern about the Leader of the House. If the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) has a train to catch,

we should all be delighted to see him go, though I do not doubt that, for reasons which may become clear in a couple of hours, the Government would like him to stay. It is a matter of taste.
On 6th March 1961 the right hon. Gentleman said:
If Government timetables go through exactly as Governments want, there will be a kind of dictatorship by consent Therefore. Government timetables ought to be liable to be upset every day of the parliamentary week." —[Official Report, 6th March 1961; Vol. 636, c. 148–152.]
The right hon Gentleman has also been exceedingly censorious of those who have introduced guillotine motions. On one occasion—23rd April 1952—he was broad-minded enough to invoke a Conservative spokesman—Disraeli:
Like all weak Governments, they resort to strong measures.
How well that applies today! He went on:
That is the policy being pursued by the present Government. The Leader of the House, having made a total failure in the allocation of the time of the House, having dispatched the House of Commons for a long holiday, and having miscalculated all the time he would have afterwards, now comes along and denies to the Opposition their rights, because of his own mismanagement.
It is true that we are about to go on holiday—we have not come back from one. But that hardly makes life more comfortable or more easy for the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman is never one to leave a good point alone when he gets on to it. On the same day—mark the words—he said:
But our great, strong Leader of the House—who cannot answer Questions when it is his duty to answer questions, who cannot organise the affairs of this House, who cannot add up the days and see that he has sufficient time left over, who sends the House off for a couple of months and afterwards finds that he has to destroy parliamentary rights which have existed for generations".—[Official Report, 23rd April 1952; Vol. 499, c. 649–50.]
The clear intention of the Government today is that further debates on these Bills should be dead debates. But during the course of the right hon. Gentleman's speech my hon. Friends repeatedly interrupted him to ask whether he was aware of the number of Government amendments involved in the Bill covered by the motion. I can tell him—even though he does not either know or care about the


answer—that there are over 200 amendments on the Notice Paper now. I understand that there are more to come. Up to half of those are amendments of substance.
The argument which the right hon. Gentleman put just now—not for the first time—was that if a point were contained in an amendment which was there in response to a request from the Opposition, that did not mean that it had to be debated. The whole point is that again and again we have had the experience, on both Bills and amendments, of botched-up efforts by the Government which mean either nothing or not what they are required to mean.
We have nine hours today to discuss a trio of motions. There is no precedent for this in the annals of Parliament. Never before have any Government made any such proposal as this. Indeed, never before has any Minister put any proposal of any kind before this House when at the same time he had to explain away so broad a chasm between what he professes and what he practises.
In Thursday's exchanges the right hon. Gentleman was heard to say that there would have been no need for these motions had the Opposition adhered to their agreements. In a somewhat evasive reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins), the Opposition Chief Whip, the right hon. Gentleman ran away from that charge. It is important that, on behalf of the Opposition, I should make clear that there were no agreements on either the Health Services or the Rent (Agriculture) Bills, for the very good reason that the usual channels were in no condition to negotiate such agreements by the time that they might have become appropriate.
We agreed that we should end the Committee stages of the other three Bills on named days, and we did that. We did that not because we were in any way reconciled to measures that we believed, and still believe, to be both odious and irrelevant, but because we did not want to give excuses to those whom we did not trust to abbreviate or eliminate the Report stages.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Peyton: No.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Mr. Ron Thomasrose—

Mr. Peyton: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall give way to him.
The question is whether the Government have discharged the burden of proof. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's words again come back to answer him—this time from 1963:
What we had from the right hon. Gentleman today was not even the slightest attempt at such proof. In reply to one of my hon. Friends who asked whether he was saying that there had been any obstruction, his answer was that, at least, one could say that there had been no marked anxiety on the part of the Opposition to get the Bill through.
That is all he charged us with.
If that is the justification for a guillotine, one could have a guillotine in any case where the Opposition showed no marked anxiety to get a measure through. Thus, the only basis upon which the Leader of the House founded his case today, applied to this particular guillotine motion, is one on which one could have a guillotine on almost any measure a Government brought before the House of Commons.—[Official Report, 29th January 1963; Vol. 670, c. 804.]

Mr. Ron Thomas: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think that I am impertinent, but has he actually read the Official Report of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill Committee'? The Opposition engaged in prevarication and filibustering all the way through, and they spent 95 per cent. of the time arguing about confrontation and trying to extract the last penny for the shareholders of those companies.

Mr. Peyton: If the hon. Gentleman was on the Committee, I can understand that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends might have been provoked now and again into being slightly irrelevant. However, I do not suppose that they would yield to that temptation.
The debate today affords the Opposition not just the opportunity but the challenge to explain our concern and even our anger at the pattern of events. The Government have a very narrow majority indeed. They have no clear mandate for policies which we believe will end up in too much government, too little wealth, and a steady wearing away of choice and liberty. The Government have been fortunate in that the Opposition parties were unable or unwilling to make a common cause. Despite that, the


Government would have matched the mood of the nation and served it better had they moderated their policies in the way Mr. Attlee did in 1950. But, no: they pressed on with their partisan measures and half-baked schemes for nationalisation.
As far as the aircraft industry is concerned, what sack of presents is Lord Beswick going to bring forward? I know that the aircraft factories are pervaded with rumours about the Government's intentions, but no one has any clear idea of what the nationalisation will produce.
In the shipbuilding industry it is not known how the Government intend to grapple with the excess capacities and in which constituencies the knife will fall. One thing is very certain and it is that some Labour Members who are voting for this Bill will not find that their constituents are relieved of anxieties: very far from it.
In recent weeks we have had something of a lull in this place. The Government seem to be in something of a morass created by their own insatiable appetite for legislation and their almost unlimited capacity for bungling. There were two possibilities. The first was a retreat. But that would have been an outrage, involving the Government in very considerable difficulties with their rather savage left-wing tigers.
I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would find the second course of pressing on equally difficult, because to do so involves revealing a real contempt for Parliament and involves him personally in a betrayal of the high words that he was once accustomed to using and that he once regarded as so important. I quote from one of his more recent references in May 1972 when he said:
We have used words to try to defend freedom. That is what the great words of the English language are for. We have used our opportunities in the House of Commons to try to say to everybody outside, to everybody who may be interested, that there are questions involved which are much bigger perhaps than even the questions involved in the major debates of last October, and other dates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 232.]
That is precisely the message that we want to hand back to the Government today.
In fact, the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friends were not grappling with colleagues—they were not confronting their left wing; they were waiting shabbily for Thurrock, and now that they have their majority, they are going ahead. Last Thursday's announcement was shocking because there is no precedent whatever for the steps which the Government announced.
Looking back, I wonder whether any of my right hon. and hon. Friends were justified in feeling any surprise at all. After all, we had the incident of the majorities on Standing Committees. We had seen the brushing aside of an inconvenient ruling by Mr. Speaker. We had the affair of the disputed vote and the long delay of the replay. Finally, late one night, we saw the snuffing out of petitioners' rights, petitioners who live in, of all places, Ebbw Vale.
This motion shows the brazen determination of the Government to choke off further discussion and to put the remaining parts of these debates into the morgue. There is no need whatsoever—[Interruption.] I always find the interruption, of the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston a very great encouragement to me because they show that the Labour Party has some soreness and some sensitivity, and that is nice to know.
There is no need to look at the details of this motion because, to quote again from the right hon. Gentleman:
There is no need to read between the lines of an edict of Nero to know that it is tyrannical."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January 1963; Vol. 670, c. 803.]
We learn that when Ministers are cornered, they feel in no way constrained by a nice regard for Parliament or its rules.
I hope that those outside this House who may feel tempted to write this off as just another parliamentary row involving nothing more serious than the ruffling of a few Opposition feathers, or even the integrity and good faith of a single Minister, will realise that we believe that the Government have today breached the fabric of Parliament and that those who follow us will find it very difficult to repair that breach. Let us cherish our freedoms—

Mr. William Hamilton: Let us pray.

Mr. Peyton: Let us cherish our freedoms in a world in which they are being eroded. These are words which hon. Members opposite now mock, yet they were spoken by the Prime Minister when he first took his present office. We think that it is a pity that he and his colleagues should be trampling those words in the mire of expediency today.

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, when this debate finishes at 7 o'clock, we shall then go on to second debate until 10 o'clock and then a third until 1 o'clock. Those subsequent debates will involve very much the same issues as have been canvassed in the last hour. Since the two Front Benches have now gone through the ritual of quoting each other's speeches at each other, is it possible for you somehow to stop them from giving us all the same quotations again so that we may move on to new ground?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): That is not a point of order. The length of speeches is a matter entirely within the hands of hon. Members.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Robert Mellish: I have been in the House for 30 years and I have lost count of the number of timetable debates I have listened to. I will not make any party political point about who has introduced the largest number of timetable motions. I must have listened to them all, because I find them intriguing. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) did not make a bad speech, but it was not up to the standard of the late lain Macleod when he opposed guillotine motions introduced by Labour Governments. He subsequently became Leader of the House and introduced his own timetable motions. Today it seemed as though we had turned the clock back and we were back in the old scene.
The best way to sum all this up is with another quotation—I am sorry if my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) does not like quotations, but he must listen to this one—this time from the late Mr. Chuter Ede, a great personal friend of mine and a great Member of the House and Leader of the House. He said:

So long as I sit in this House, and when my party is in power, I shall support the efforts of the Government to get their business. But if the party opposite is in power, I shall oppose the Government getting their business, and I hope that no one will have any illusions on that score."—[Official Report, 6th March 1961; Vol. 636, c. 86.]
That is how we explain the ritual that we have just heard about, about who said what and when and on which side of the House they were when they said it. That is what it is all about. I see the Leader of the Liberal Party is still here and he might be interested in a quotation from Asquith 50 years ago. He said that he had
slowly and reluctantly come to the conclusion that you cannot carry on legislation here on large and complicated subjects without treating a time-table as part of our established procedure
That was good old Asquith donkeys years ago.
As Chief Whip I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure and my views have not changed since then. I do not believe that the business of this House can go on with the present arrangements of hoping somehow that we can get a handshake between both sides of the House. I have the greatest respect in the world for the usual channels as represented by Conservative Members, and I say nothing against them. But it is impossible for them to control their mavericks.
There are some lively characters on that side of the House. The party managers over there may shake hands with us and say that they will do their best to give us a Bill by a certain date, but they cannot guarantee it. The unsatisfactory situation is that as a party manager I could at no time be certain of any Bill finally coming to fruition. What a way to run a Parliament!
I believe that certain complicated Bills should on Second Reading be the subject of an end timetable motion. That should state specifically that by a certain date a Bill will have a Third Reading. I agree that the Opposition should have complete freedom up to that date to put their arguments and to decide how to use that time. If they want to spend two days a week in Committee, that is for them to choose. The Opposition's rights to oppose should never be eroded.
On so many Bills, however, the Opposition have abused their right to be the Opposition. I take the Education Bill, for example. If ever there was a crying need for a guillotine motion it is on that Bill. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is not here. Perhaps I should have given him notice that I intended to raise this matter. He and his party put down about 250 new clauses and amendments to the Bill. The first new clause took three hours to debate before the Government moved the closure. After that vote there was a vote on the main Question. Then for 57 minutes the hon. Member for Chelmsford moved the second of the new clauses. I worked it out on a rough calculation that we should have been here night and day for about six months and we should still not have got rid of the Education Bill.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely we are dealing with the Education Bill in the next debate, not this.

Mr. Mellish: You do not have to reply to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a load of rubbish.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot pre-empt the Chair. It is for the Chair to decide these matters. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman is developing his argument and will come in due course to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill.

Mr. Mellish: That point of order was not even clever. My point is that it should be a general principle that any Bill which is vehemently opposed by the Opposition should be subject to a different procedure. The Opposition have every right to do everything they humanly can to stop a Bill from getting on the statute book. They may take hours to discuss one amendment. I have done all that myself. We have seen today's charade performed before with different actors.
The Select Committee on Procedure did not adopt my suggestion for an end timetable motion, but perhaps it will be adopted one day. It would mean, for example, that a Bill introduced in late January would be assured of a Third Reading by the end of March. The Opposition, not the Government, must

have the major say in what happens between those two dates.

Mr. Robert Cooke: If there were a fixed timetable for every Bill, what would there be to stop Ministers and their supporters from taking up all the time and preventing the Opposition from discussing the matter?

Mr. Mellish: One could do nothing to prevent that. It would be for the Chair to control that sort of thing, if it were possible. But the Opposition, for example, could opt for four Committee sittings a week if they wished. Of course, if any Government had their way, they would get a Bill through in one sitting. Oppositions must be allowed to oppose, but Oppositions must be denied the complete freedom to do exactly what they want by filibustering, for example, in their attempts to stop Bills. Governments must have the right to govern and Oppositions must have the right to oppose. That is what democracy is all about. But when Oppositions have had their fun and games, the Government must be free to move in.
I support the motion because it is completely justified. I have been out of a job since 8th April—a date I shall always remember. I left my job with some relief and some regrets. However, I can say on the argument about the disputed vote that no Government could have been more decent and honourable after that incident in trying to appease the Opposition following the fuss they made.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Nonsense.

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman should go back to the Library and read some more rubbish.
The Leader of the Opposition had a private interview with the Prime Minister about the incident and he apologised to her. The Leader of the House arranged for a full day's debate to rehearse the incident.
I can illustrate the terrible tangle into which the usual channels have now got themselves by telling hon. Members that at least three of my hon. Friends who should not be moved from hospital are being brought to the House today. That is an absolute scandal. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is the Government's fault."] I do not agree. When Oppositions filibuster,


Governments must introduce guillotine motions. The situation in which the usual channels now find themselves is primarily the result of the Opposition's refusal to co-operate.
I do not doubt the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) and neither does anybody else on this side. He is a decent and honourable man and certainly as good as anybody on the Opposition Benches. I believe that he acted in the way he did with the best of intentions. This motion was inevitable.
I put it on record, and this speech may be quoted—perhaps by a Conservative Government if there ever is such a terrible thing—that I believe that there must be a timetable motion on every controversial Bill at the time of Second Reading. It would stop this charade and the rubbish we hear in all these debates when hon. Members repeat what was said years ago by people such as Asquith. Let us get on with the argument and the vote so that we can then get on with the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Do I understand that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is not moving either of the amendments in the names of himself and his right hon. Friends?

Mr. Peyton: That is correct, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am giving way, with a graciousness unknown to hon. Members opposite, to the hon. Member who is to speak for the Liberal Party and to move the Liberal amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In calling the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) to move his manuscript amendment at this stage, as agreed by Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be the sense of the House that the Chair should not unduly restrict subsequent debate. I shall accordingly propose to allow hon. Members to continue to address themselves to the motion as well as to the amendment.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move as a manuscript amendment, in paragraph 5(1)(b) leave out from first "Member" to end of sub-paragraph (1)(b) and insert

and which shall have been selected by Mr. Speaker".
As a good Presbyterian, I do not accept the doctrine of apostolic succession and I do not believe that it applies to the leadership of the Liberal Party. I hope that the Leader of the House will excuse me if I feel free from having to sustain what was done by my distinguished predecessors a long time ago.
It was slightly insulting of the Leader of the House to suggest that I might wish to speak without checking the precedents of the Liberal Government, especially as the right hon. Gentleman pointed them out on Thursday. I have checked the precedent of 1908 and the right hon. Gentleman is entirely unjustified in his view of that occasion when a Liberal Government moved a guillotine motion on two Bills—not five—in one day. They were closely related Scottish Bills which had been blocked by the Conservative hereditary majority in another place.
This incident was the forerunner of a long series of battles between the Liberal Government and the hereditary obstacle of the other place. To suggest that a motion on nationalisation measures supported by only 28 per cent. of the electorate is a parallel of the 1908 position and to pray in aid the guillotine introduced for the first old-age pension is to stretch political comparisons a little too far.
I hope that we shall dispense with some of the more sanctimonious utterances from both sides of the House. The Leader of the Opposition talked about the Leader of the House bringing down an iron curtain on the House of Commons, but we must pause to ask who dug out the iron ore and did the smelting to enable that iron curtain to be manufactured. It was the right hon. Lady and her right hon. Friends in 1971 when they concocted Standing Order No. 44, which the Leader of the House is using now. I hope that we shall have no more such extravagant phrases.

Mr. Lawson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be accurate. Standing Order No. 44 of 1971 replaced the Standing Order No. 44 introduced by the Labour Government in 1967, which enabled only two hours' debate on a guillotine motion. The 1971 Order provided for three hours' debate.

Mr. Steel: I was referring specifically to the complaint of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the Opposition did not realise that more than one Bill could be included in Standing Order No. 44. Even Conservative Ministers must be presumed to intend the consequences of their actions.
The Leader of the House bored us with statistics to show what a generous fellow he had been in allowing the Committee stages to go on for so long. He posed in the guise of a reluctant executioner. That is nonsense. We all know perfectly well that the guillotine would have been introduced much earlier had it not been for the vacancies at Rotherham and Thurrock. That was a piece of high humbug from the Leader of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman described guillotine measures he had opposed in the past—particularly on the European Communities Bill—as being on highly controversial pieces of legislation. This is changing the meaning of words. In the right hon. Gentleman's dictionary, highly controversial matters are those which he opposes. Measures that he supports are not controversial—they are acceptable to the House.
The real danger to the House is that each incoming Government build on the bad precedents of their predecessors. This is a particular danger for those of us who do not sit on the Front Benches. In a few years' time this debate on the introduction of five guillotines in one day for the first time might be prayed in aid by a Government wishing to introduce 10 guillotines in a single day.
As Governments come and go, the freedom of the House is eroded by the creation of new precedents. I hope that the Leader of the House will at least recognise that danger, particularly when I quote some of the things he has said in the past. It may be painful for him to listen to them, but he will just have to listen.
In 1961, the right hon. Gentleman said:
That is why I am opposed to this Measure. As I was saying, every day when the Leader of the House comes into the House he ought not to he certain that his business will go through that day;… There ought to be much more pressure of this nature, because then there would be government by discussion … instead of government by edict, which is what we have to have so often now. It so happens that I think that the collective wisdom of the

House of Commons is superior to the collective wisdom of the Cabinet."—[Official Report, 6th March 1961; Vol. 636, c. 154.]
I agree with that statement in its generality and not in relation to any particular Cabinet.
In 1962, the right hon. Gentleman said:
It is of great importance, first, because everybody knows that the introduction of a Guillotine destroys a debate.… Members should recognise the fundamental principle that we must decide what is going to happen by open debate on the Floor of the House. The Guillotine injures that because it interferes with free debate. Nobody can deny that"—[Official Report, 25th January 1972; Vol. 652. c. 456–458.]
Yet now he seeks to deny that.
In 1972, the right hon. Gentleman said:
The guillotine is the last resort of a Government who know that they cannot get the full-hearted consent of Parliament but are determined to have their way in any case.… What the Government and the Prime Minister, in particular, are doing is to show full-hearted contempt for the democratic processes of this country; full-hearted contempt for the normal legislative processes of this House of Commons."—[Official Report, 2nd May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 235.]
He has now changed his views and says that a guillotine is none of those high-minded phrases but is just a matter of degree. What a change! He not only demeans the House, but demeans himself and his long record as a parliamentarian by what he is doing.

Mr. Foot: I do not ask the hon. Gentleman to quote any more of what I have said, but if he will quote my remarks properly he will see that I never said that there was an absolute rule to be laid down about no guillotine at all. I always said that it was a matter of degree.

Mr. Steel: The right hon. Gentleman has picked and chosen. When he has been against a measure, he has decided that he is against a guillotine on it. When he has been in favour of a measure, he has been in favour of the guillotine on it.
The right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) was right to quote Mr. Asquith and his view on the timetabling of debate. I hope that the Leader of the House will not think it impertinent when I say that he should listen to a little advice on his leadership. I take the view that a Government, especially one


with a narrow majority, have an obligation to try to seek as much support as is possible from the entire House for their legislation.
My colleagues and I are not opposed in principle to the sensible timetabling of debates. As the right hon. Member for Bermondsey suggested, timetabling should be introduced at the beginning after discussion. We believe that the Leader of the House has an obligation to go to the official Opposition and the other parties to ask "What is a reasonable time in which we might proceed with this Bill?"
I was the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party at the time of the European Communities legislation, and discussion of that nature took place on that Bill. We did not enter a debate having been told that we could take or leave a motion on the Order Paper. There was negotiation. We were satisfied—I know that the right hon. Gentleman was not—to get an extra half-day debate on one section of the Bill. That was negotiated with the then Leader of the House. I suggest that the present Leader of the House should pursue that line.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Without meaning to do so, the hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that there should be some kind of fix. How would his plan have worked out in the case of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill? An obligation may have been given in good faith that could not have been delivered. In those circumstances there would have been charges of breach of faith.

Mr. Steel: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I do not believe that any leader of any party, or any Whip, has any right to commit the membership of his party to a certain course of action. The Parliament (No. 2) Bill is a good example, but the Leader of the House, to the knowledge of my party, and I speak for no others in this Chamber, has made no attempt in advance of tabling these motions to enter into consultations about what would be a reasonable timetable to adopt.
It was the view of our spokesman in Committee on the Education Bill that the Bill was in danger of being filibustered. The right hon. Gentleman would have

found a sympathetic ear had he come to us to ask about a sensible timetable for that Bill.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): The point that the hon. Gentleman is making is reasonable in the circumstances, but if he had consulted his hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) he would have been told that I sought to get a sensible agreement from the beginning of the proceedings in Committee. I consulted not only the Conservative Party but on a number of occasions his hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), the Scottish National Party representative. The hon. Members for Colne Valley and Dundee, East were perfectly willing to come to a sensible and rational arrangement, but they were frustrated by the unwillingness of the Conservative Party to enter into such an arrangement.

Mr. Steel: I cannot speak for the Conservative Party, but that Bill has passed from Committee. We are talking about the guillotine on Report. I have consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). As our spokesman on the Bill, he says that there was no discussion on what would be a sensible timetable prior to the tabling of the motion today. That is the complaint that I am making. I am not saying that we should have agreed to a timetable, but the right hon. Gentleman did not even try.
A further objection to the Bill and the Government's handling of it is that it is hybrid in more than the narrow parliamentary sense of the word—it is one Bill dealing with two different industries. That in itself has been a cause of delay and frustration. There has had to be necessary consultation with two or three very different industries. The wrapping up in one package of this extensive piece of nationalisation has itself been a cause of prolonged and necessary delay and detailed examination of the Bill.
The effect of my amendment is simple—namely, to enable amendments to be voted on at the end of each period of debate. It would enable voting on amendments introduced not only by the Government but by other Members. I regard this as being an extremely important


amendment, and I hope that I shall be able to carry some Labour Members with me. If the House does not accept the amendment, the Government will have the right to produce their own amendments and have them voted upon, and, by concentrating on their own amendments, the opportunity to remove discussion and voting on any amendments other than Government amendments.
Let us consider the position of the ship repairing industry. There are amendments in the names of my hon. Friends, amendments from the Plaid Cymru Members, amendments from Conservative Members and amendments from an important group of Members on the Labour Back Benches. However, the motion as it comes before us does not allow amendments from Government Back Benchers to be voted upon; only amendments from members of the Government. The House will recognise the distinction between the two categories. I point out to Labour Members that there is no chance of their amendments being discussed or of a vote being taken on them if my amendment is not carried.
I believe that the Government are attempting to stifle open debate on matters of keen concern to thousands of people in their everyday lives, matters for which they have no mandate in any real sense of the word. The House must rise and defend its liberties at whatever point they are under erosion. I believe that the Leader of the House is guilty of eroding them further in his action today.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I hope that the House will forgive me if at this juncture I do not make any references to the amendment. I trust that my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench will declare their position.
I shall make some reference to the speech of the Leader of the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), but first I wish him the best in his job as leader of his party. I am sure that he will have a pretty difficult time with a somewhat motley crew. Nevertheless, I sincerely wish him all the best. I trust that he will have many years fighting for his point of view.
I found the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the apostolic succession very interesting. They were especially interesting because, like many other members, I have done a bit of homework. I have discovered that between 1907 and 1913 the Liberal Government brought in not merely five guillotine motions but 23 covering 20 different Bills. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is declaring in clear terms that in no circumstances would a Liberal Government, if by some miracle one were elected, ever bring in guillotine motions.

Mr. David Steel: No.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman says that he is not saying that—fine. That means that as usual the Liberal Party is facing both ways at the same time. As always, it wants it both ways. The Liberals want to be fair, objective and decent. They want to be against the Government, and at the same time they want to be against the Tories. They end up with a policy that is no policy. That is a typical Liberal position and one that I understand very well.
The House has debated timetable motions on many occasions. They always generate a great deal of heat, but never any light. There has always been a great measure of hypocrisy about the Opposition, whatever its political complexion. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that if we were a civilised parliamentary body, we would not lay down a timetable but try to negotiate a timetable. But that can never be guaranteed. Incidentally, a timetable motion should never be applied to constitutional measures, which are fundamentally different from nationalisation or denationalisation measures.
The right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition again treated the House to exaggerated language when she referred to an iron curtain coming down. The first timetable motion to be debated in the House was in 1881. In that debate Gladstone, Parnell and T. P. O'Connor, a former Member for Liverpool, Scotland, were all involved. All the political wizards of the time took part in the debate. Gladstone said that he would not vote against the Government, but he issued a warning that parliamentary democracy was in danger. Parnell said that it was more or less the end of British


parliamentary democracy and T. P. O'Connor's remarks were stronger and different in character.
Ever since in debates on timetable motions there have been fears about British parliamentary democracy being about to fade away, or being in danger of being disrupted or ended by the terrible Government in power at the time. It is amazing how British parliamentary democracy has survived since 1881. It has done remarkably well and is still surviving.
I am sorry that the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition is not present to hear me say that the Tories can cry "Wolf" too often. They accuse the Labour Government of bringing in a dictatorial iron curtain system, but they know that that is untrue. But the day may come when certain political forces—not us will try to bring in such a system. Will she understand what is happening then, or will she be on their side? That has happened before in democratic countries. Right-wing forces have undermined and destroyed democracy. I ask the House, particularly Liberal Members, to bear that in mind.
That is not the issue. As hon. Gentlemen would understand if they argued the honest case instead of the nonsensical case about the undermining of British democracy, the real issue is that the Opposition want to hold up the Government's business. They are perfectly justified in doing so within our parliamentary system. We tried to hold up the Industrial Relations Act and other Bills to which we were bitterly opposed. We did not say that our opposition was because the Government were bringing in a timetable motion. We did not like the guillotine and we argued against it, but we did not say that it was the end of parliamentary democracy, because we knew that at the next General Election the people had the right to elect another Government.
I draw to the attention of the House Lord Kilmuir's memoirs. In referring to the years 1950 and 1951, when a Labour Government with a very small majority were in power, he said:
Enormously encouraged by these and other manifestations of the Labour Party's sagging fortunes, we hurled ourselves enthusiastically into our task of Opposition. Angry scenes at Question Time became an almost daily occurrence, and all-night sittings a regular feature

of Parliamentary life. Relations between the parties became exceedingly bitter, and the spectacle of aged Labour Members muffled up in rugs or being pushed through the divsion lobbies in bathchairs was not a pleasant one. We could argue that it was not our fault that the Labour Party contained so many old men who were physically quite unfitted for active political life. Our hatred of the Government was deep and sincere, we had many old scores to pay off, and the price which the Labour Party had to pay for their arrogance and abuse after 1945 was a very heavy one.
He goes on to say:
Nevertheless, I do not think that many Conservatives who took part in that ruthless period of 'harrying' look back on it with much ride or satisfaction.
I hope that hon. Members will bear that passage in mind. Even today, hon. Members on the Government side of the House are having to be brought here in ambulances and nodded through. I hope that the House will not feel much pride or satisfaction in that.
All this nonsense about the guillotine undermining British democracy hon. Members know to be untrue. The Opposition are using every political device they know to defeat the Government. They are perfectly entitled to do that, but they should remember that the Labour Government have as much right to bring in their legislation as have Governments of any other political persuasion.
During the years when the Liberals were in power the 23 timetable motions were put down because of the reactionary opposition of the Tories. We are debating this motion today because of the Tories' reactionary opposition to progressive measures. I ask hon. Members to look back over history and to recognise that what we are doing is perfectly justified to sustain parliamentary democracy. If the Opposition's policies were carried out to the ultimate, parliamentary democracy would be not sustained but destroyed.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I welcome the speech made by the Leader of the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). I find myself in large measure in accord with what he said. The last part of the speech made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) contained hyperbole of the wildest sort. The Government must recognise that when Governments with small


majorities attempt to govern against the wishes of the people, they are bound to run into trouble. The hon. Member for Walton suggested that there was danger of the abuse of the powers of the House by what he called the Right wing. What he said applies equally to a Left-wing Government.
The clear lesson emerges that the Select Committee on Procedure has a greater responsibility to the House than has hitherto been understood. In a country such as ours which has no Bill of Rights the freedoms of the country depend on the House of Commons. Because of a misdrafting or too rough a drafting of Standing Order No. 44 in 1971, a ruthless Government have been enabled to drive a coach and horses through the Standing Order. That is what they are doing today by this quintuple timetable motion—with trumbrils and all. That is the first lesson to be drawn.
The Leader of the House is responsible not just of his own party. He should seriously examine the whole subject of the Procedure Committee and the Procedure Committee should look much more closely at the dangerous opportunities which enable the Executive to override the general will of the House.
Even the Leader of the House himself admitted the muddle into which the Government's legislation has now got. I am concerned about the fact that we are having to produce guillotine motions on so many Bills and about the fact, as was pointed out by the Leader of the Liberal Party, that in the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill we have not just a hybrid Bill but a triple hybrid Bill which is generally unpopular throughout the country. It is a Bill which has proved to be unconstitutional and it is only as a result of a by-election, as the Liberal leader said, that the Government hope to get these extraordinary measures through.
I must turn to one point which the Leader of the House raised. It concerns taste and the general feel of the Government about what is right and fitting. What the Government are doing tonight is perfectly legal, but I do not believe that it shows taste or a long-range interest in the way in which the affairs of this country are conducted. No one is saying that this is a Hitlerian coup de main by the Government. Certainly, I

am sure that the late Adolf Hitler would have found someone better than Lord Beswick to put in charge of the aircraft industry. But there is, nevertheless, a fact which must be faced.
The Leader of the House said in a fairly loud and strenuous voice that when certain people say it is wrong for a minority Government with only 37 per cent. of the votes to pursue certain policies which are opposed by the great majority, that is an entirely wrong constitutional doctrine. I beg to differ. I think that when it comes to a matter of taste and decision, government can be carried on only if it is of such a nature that proper time is given for the full discussion of the issues, or that it governs with consent of the great majority of people. Otherwise, the Government are left in a very difficult position.
I am sure that the Leader of the House is familiar with this quotation:
We have 37 per cent. of the total vote, which means that we have 75 per cent. of the power which is necessary to govern.
But the right hon. Gentleman goes much further. Having 37 per cent. of the vote, he claims 100 per cent. of the power to govern absolutely. My quote is by the late Adolf Hitler in an interview he gave to an American journalist on 17th August 1932.

Mr. Heffer: I feel that the right hon. Gentleman was joking when he referred to Lord Beswick as he did. Lord Beswick had a distinguished flying record during the Second World War and played his part in fighting the forces of darkness and Hitlerism. I do not think it right to refer to noble Lords in that way. Everyone played his part in fighting against precisely this type of thing, which we have to be prepared to fight against.

Mr. Fraser: The consequence of that would be to put winners of the Victoria Cross in charge of the nationalised industries. I can quite see that view being put forward by some members of the Left wing as a way to bring industry in this country round.
I would add that I feel there is a tact of government, a tact of what is possible when the Government complain that they are bringing in legislation opposed by not 65 per cent. of the people but considerably more. Let me just remind hon.


Gentlemen that the Hitler régime—and it was not the Reichstag when Goering was in charge but the Reichstag before the Nazis seized power—had 37 per cent. of the vote, which dropped to 32 per cent., and seized power on that basis. Let us not be so easy about the dangers of minority Government.
The issues being raised tonight are two: first, the incompetence of the Government and, secondly, the effort of the Government to overrule a majority of the people, which is constantly growing in its total opposition to what this Government seek to do. I therefore believe that Labour Members, the Conservative Opposition the Liberal Party and the rest are totally justified in an all-out opposition to what is being attempted this very evening.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Reproaches have been hurled across the House from the Front Bench speakers that we all tend to vote for the guillotines introduced by our own party. That is probably true of the great majority of hon. Members and there is nothing in that which merits reproach. It is no disgrace for an hon. Member to believe firmly in the principles and policies of his own party and to work for their success within the rules of order of this House.
During past years we have had a state of our development where the periodic use of the guillotine has been an inevitable process in carrying Government policies into effect. I do not intend to pursue the Hitlerian arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser), except to say that one of the reasons for the arrival of the Hitlerite Government in Germany was that it was preceded by Governments with a form of constitution under which it was becoming progressively impossible to reach important decisions about necessary matters. Democracy can be destroyed just as much by processes of Government which mean endless discussion and continual postponement of decisions as by anything else. That is why we have used guillotines and that is why we have been entitled to do so.
I hope that the House will carry this motion tonight, because I think that the

Leader of the House made a case beyond dispute. It was not disputed that, by and large, the Labour Party has been much more sparing in its use of the guillotine than has the Conservative Party and has shown a great deal more patience over Bills before resorting to the guillotine. I do not believe that this is really the heart of the matter.
I should like to refer to one other aspect of this motion. It has been quite clear from the Chair that the motion is not out of order. Some play has been made of the fact that in certain respects it is unprecedented, but to say that a thing is unprecedented is not to say that it may not be done, otherwise this House would still be trying to do its business under rules devised in the fourteenth century. From time to time the House changes its rules and, therefore, from time to time a situation is bound to arise in which something is done which is permissible under the new rules, but which was not permissible under the old. Such a thing will, by its nature, be unprecedented, but that does not mean that it is either out of order or that it is an undesirable thing to do.
What I suppose is unprecedented here is the amount of chopping that we are doing in the nine hours we shall spend on debate tonight. If I have a criticism of the Government at all it would be that they showed too much patience earlier and this is why we have to have this chop, chop, chop now. I think the moral is, as was pointed out so forcibly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), that we must come to extend the concept of a timetable motion to all major Bills, by agreement if possible but, if not, then the Government must have the right, if they can get a majority of the House to agree with them, to impose a timetable motion.
I want to develop the argument about why I believe that to be necessary. The importance of this debate tonight is not only that it concerns the particular Bills, but that it is showing us what will increasingly be the need of his House if we are to do our business not only efficiently but with a proper regard for the rights of the minority and freedom of discussion. This is because I believe that the claims about rights of minorities and freedom of discussion which have come from those


in opposition to the motion have really been in defence of illusory rights, as I shall endeavour to show.
It can be argued that if one accepts a timetable motion—or, to give it its slang name, the guillotine—on all major Bills, one takes away from the Opposition one of the weapons which they have now, the weapon of delay. But what does that weapon come to in the last resort? If the Government are determined to get their measure through and have a majority in the House, when they see that the weapon of delay is being used beyond a certain point, they will crack down and the weapon will be taken out of the Opposition's hands.
It is an illusion to claim that that weapon is effective. It may occasionally get concessions on very minor matters, but it results also in the use of the time of the House in talking a great deal of agreeable rubbish. I confess that I have once in opposition spoken on the question of whether "may" or "shall" would have been more appropriate in a particular clause. According to Hansard, 50 minutes elapsed from the time my speech began to the time it ended. A study of the pages of Hansard will show that only 10 minutes of that were taken up by me—the rest of the time was taken up by infuriated interruptions from supporters of the then Government.
That is all good fun, and if one can occasionally get a little bit of concession from the Government, there may be some justification for it. But the public outside, who want efficient and intelligible Government, are not awfully impressed by that way of doing business, and in the end the Government get their way on the matter.

Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend will recall that wonderful example of opposition at its best and worst—the London Government Bill. He led the Opposition upstairs in Committee. With his usual brilliant acumen, he put down on the first day nearly 1,000 amendments, and he has recalled the sort of speech then made. Neither he nor I was surprised when, shortly afterwards—after only three or four sittings of the Committee—the Government of the day said "That is your lot; we shall introduce a guillotine."

Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. He has illustrated a point I have in mind. It has been argued that the massive number of amendments put down to the Bills we are discussing today shows how much vital matter there is to discuss. It shows nothing of the sort. The number of amendments is a tribute to the ingenuity of the Opposition in finding ways of delay.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Many of them are Government amendments.

Mr. Stewart: The arguments advanced by the Opposition have concerned both.
I do not believe, therefore, that the weapon of delay is an effective check on what is supposed to be a power-hungry Government. It was pointed out long ago by Walter Bagehot—almost everyone else has been quoted, but I do not think that anyone has brought him in yet—that our constitution is not like the United States constitution, so drafted as to have elaborate checks and balances in the constitution itself on the abuse of power. He added:
The real check on any Government is the knowledge that the odd man in five may vote the other way next time.
Nowadays, the odd man in 35 is enough to cause Governments to think again.
What is the way in which an Opposition can mobilise the vote of the odd man in 35 or 55? It is by vigorous and intelligent presentation of the arguments against the Government's policies, and doing so both in this House and elsewhere, and one effect of a guillotine motion is to cause the Opposition to use the time on serious arguments and not on filibustering, as anyone who has listened to debate under the guillotine knows perfectly well. Perhaps one may paraphrase Dr. Johnson and say that when an Opposition knows that it is going to be guillotined, it concentrates its mind wonderfully—concentrates it on the arguments that have some substance.

Mr. Anthony Berry: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has quite understood the point about the amendments. There are also 200 Government amendments down for Report stage, and there are still more to come that we have not yet seen.

Mr. Stewart: But that argument cannot be very strong because most of those


Government amendments are in response to the Opposition, and therefore cannot be said at the same time to be provocative of debate.
The House has a choice between having an orderly timetable motion at the beginning of discussion of a Bill and having a period of filibustering followed by chop, chop chop. The arrangement we have at present is not conducive to the vigorous presentation of argument or to the respect in which the House is held by people outside.
Some people argue that the whole trouble is that Governments try to put too much legislation through the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought that we should get that response. It is rather like those dolls that one presses and a remark comes out. Why do we have so much more legislation? It is partly because we are living in an inventive age. If no one had invented the motor car, we should have had much less road traffic legislation. Let hon. Members look through the statute book and see what takes up the pages, whichever party is in power. A great deal of what takes up the pages of the statute book is unavoidable reaction to our increasingly technical civilisation. If no one had invented wireless telegraphy, a great deal of legislation connected with it would not be necessary.
The other great source of legislation is the growing humanity of our age. If there were no retirement pensions or no sickness benefit and the rest, how much legislation we should be spared—legislation which has not only to be passed to begin with but has to be amended as we learn more about the real needs of the people! How many fewer statutory regulations and orders there would also need to be! Nowadays, of course, now that we have established the main structure of a Welfare State, what we are moving on to, I am glad to say, is discovering particular needs which have been neglected before—for example, the needs of the disabled, the blind, the children who are cruelly treated in the home. To deal with these matters we need legislation.
I say, therefore, that in a technical age and an age which has an increasing social conscience, we shall get more legis-

lation whichever party is in power, and it is important that we should.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that there is particular need for the nationalisation of the shipbuilding and aircraft industries?

Mr. Stewart: Would the hon. Gentleman say that there was particular need for the denationalisation measures carried through by Tory Governments? These are matters on which the parties disagrees. What the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying is that if he disagrees with legislation that is proposed, there is no need for it. I accept that there will be a certain amount of partisan legislation, but the real reason for a great deal of legislation is the one I have mentioned.
We live in an increasingly technical and humane civilisation. It is no way out of the problem to say "Do not legislate so much". We have to remember that the House has not only to legislate increasingly, but that we want it to do other jobs. We want it to supervise more closely the work of Government and the nationalised industries, and we still do not know the answer to the question "How do we find enough time in the House to study the work of the various organs of the European community?"
We are, therefore, in a position where we shall have to make major decisions about how we handle our business. I am suggesting that one important decision to that end was the recognition of the timetabling of Bills. That should not be so unwelcome to the Leader of the Liberal Party, who came a little way towards agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey, nor to the Conservative Party, which has resorted to the guillotine more than any other party. I hope that we shall give urgent consideration to the need for a change in our procedure.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: In his somewhat strange address in moving the motion, the Leader of the House referred to the large number of Committee sittings. But he forgot to mention that the Bill is a collective of three different nationalisation measures—a measure to nationalise the aircraft industry, a measure to nationalise the shipbuilding industry and a measure to


nationalise the ship repair industry. The decision to try to nationalise three completely different industries in one Bill is the principal cause of the Government's misfortune over their timetable. On the Notice Paper at this moment are no fewer than 208 Government amendments, and one Government new clause, and we understand that there are still more to come. That is why the Leader of the House was not able to tell the House how many Government amendments there will be. That is an illustration of the incompetent drafting of this trinity of Bills embodied in one.
The Government tried to be too clever. They tried to draft a Bill in such a way that Mr. Speaker could not order it to be divided into its component parts. On one occasion after another the Government have themselves produced a situation which they are now trying to resolve by an unprecedented allocation of time motion. The Government themselves created the hybridity troubles by trying to leave out Marathon Shipbuilding (United Kingdom) Limited, a firm which, on the day when the first controversial motion came before the House on 27th May, announced that it would have to start making what even the Leader of the House and his hon. Friends would recognise as ships. The Government's incompetence in drafting produced a Hybrid Bill in the first place.
Once Mr. Speaker had identified the hybridity in the Bill, Government incompetence resulted in the Bill being delayed. The Select Committee could have heard all the petitioners and we could have gone on to the Report stage well before now; but the Government were determined to deny the petitioners the right to have their petitions heard. That is the milk in the coconut. The Government did not want trade unionists, shop stewards and branch secretaries turning up before the Select Committee, arguing in support of their own petitions against the Bill. That is what the Government tried to prevent, and that is what they did prevent. If the Government had not been determined to prevent that, they would have had the Report stage over and done with before now. Their incompetence plus their determination to silence ordinary members of the public has led to this situation.
Now the Government are determined finally to silence the House of Commons—and silence it will be. In three parliamentary days one cannot deal with 208 Government amendments, one Government new clause, other Government amendments yet to come and a reasonable number of amendments from all the Opposition parties. The Government know that we cannot do that, and that is why they put the guillotine on.
The situation with which the Government claim that they are now trying to deal has been continuously and at each stage of their own making. It is not a misfortune forced upon them by the Opposition or by circumstances outside their control. It is a blend of folly—the folly of trying to silence petitioners—and incompetence. Even his own Back Benchers have had ample opportunity of forming an opinion of the personal incompetence of the Leader of the House. His simple incompetence in handling the House has been demonstrated not only day by day or week by week but month after month in Bill after Bill.
The selection of Bills which is now to be put in these multiple guillotine motions is the cause of particular worry and concern to the House, and that will continue after the debate. I can find no record—nor has the Leader of the House offered one—of any Hybrid Bill being guillotined before a particular organ of the House of Commons—the Standing Orders Committee, over which Mr. Deputy Speaker presides—has reported on it to the House. When I say "the House" I mean the Government.
The Leader of the House dug back into early history. If he looks at the guillotine motions of 1908, 1913 and 1914, he will find that it was generally the Prime Minister who found it necessary to justify such cases to the House. He justified them on grounds not only involving the House of Lords but because of the massive majorities which that legislation had secured on the Floor of the House. Such motions were moved not after one cheated vote or a tiny majority on a contentious vote. Massive majorities were called for to justify such a motion.
Parties of both political complexions have used timetable motions. No one is suggesting the contrary. But it is also true that the Front Benches concerned have tended to use the arguments when


in Opposition that were used by the other side when in Government. That is not in dispute. The situation is well documented and there is no reason for further elaboration. What is unprecedented is for the Government to handle their own legislation with consistent incompetence. To pretend anything else is not in accordance with the facts.
Why are the Government having to extend their sitting into the summer? Why are they having to beg the Lords to come back in September? Why are they unable to tell their own supporters when they will come back after the recess? Why have the Government got themselves into such a mess? As the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) suggested, it is partly because the Government are overloading the system with legislation. It is partly because they have been playing tricks with the system, tricks which have consistently misfired, like that of putting three industries into one Bill and honing thereby to save time, when the exact opposite has resulted.
The greatest single factor in the 58 sittings in Committee was the Government's sending the Bill for First Reading before it had been properly prepared. The incompetent preparation of the Bill caused all those sittings. It is not possible to argue, as the Leader of the House apparently is arguing, that a Government Bill needs 208 Government amendments if it was competently drafted. The Government need this vast array of amendments. Even on the very day when they are asking the House for a timetable resolution on the Bill, we understand that they have not made up their minds on the full list of the amendments which they want. Under a timetable resolution, those amendments take precedence. Therefore, by their timetable motion the Government are crowding out the amendments which the Opposition parties have every right to argue before the House in the proper conduct of the Report stage.
That is how the Leader of the House is so abusing the processes of Parliament. When he looks back to precedents, he can find none where there was the same magnitude of Government amendments to be processed—there is no other word—like a sausage or a decayed bit of cheese, in the way that the Government amend-

ments are to be processed. Once again, many Opposition amendments will not be voted on, whatever their merits. Those merits will never be exposed to public gaze because they are denied debate by the knowing, deliberate act of the Government. That is the nature of the frustration of parliamentary processes on which this Government are insisting.
We have now had a number of debates on the procedures to which the Bill should be subjected. A number of Government supporters have said, with crocodile tears in their eyes, how they dislike what their Front Bench is doing, but they troop through the Lobby in support of it at the end of the day, and that is the test.
Even now we have three different industries to be nationalised in one Bill, under an allocation of time motion for which only three hours' debate is allowed. I want to stress that yet again in case it is contended that only one Bill is subject to this miserable motion.
As the Government sow, so shall they reap. If this is what they want to do to Parliament, one day it will recoil upon their own heads. In vain will then come the expostulations from the right hon. Gentleman. In vain will he bend over from the Front Bench as if doing washing in a bowl with his usual gesture and claim that something has happened to Parliament. What will have happened to Parliament will have been of his own doing.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Stan Thorne: Like the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I spent some time in the Standing Committee. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House a statement about the 58 sittings which I completely endorse, as I am sure any other hon. Member who served on the Committee must do.
The purpose of the present exercise is to find more time to debate the provisions of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, the Opposition's purpose is to prevent the Bill from becoming law. That was openly said time and again by the Opposition in Committee. Nobody doubted that they felt their function was to prevent the Bill from becoming law.
If there is any criticism to be made of the Government in the Committee, it is


that they were too tolerant of the Opposition's antics. The number of trivial amendments can be seen by reference to, for example, the filibusterers of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) had his turn from time to time. But the arch-filibusterer of them all was undoubtedly the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who had the capacity for turning every marginal amendment into a debate about how many angels had danced on the point of a needle. He did it extremely effectively, even though the angels were sometimes dressed as Scottish ship repair workers or Scottish Aviation employees.
The process went on hour after hour. Some of us were extremely patient, though we made representations to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry, who led for the Government, for a much earlier end to the Committee. Unfortunately we were not successful. My hon. Friend took the view that Ministers have taken in the past: that if we carried on we should reach a measure of agreement. I acknowledge that that was his rôle, and he played it very effectively, but he fell foul of a series of events which were completely outside his control.
During the Committee sittings there was one minor, or major, change. My right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister resigned. Almost immediately it became apparent that the Opposition thought that the prospects of getting rid of the Bill were better than ever. Therefore, there was a new series of filibusters. Then there was the election for my right hon. Friend's successor as Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can well imagine some of the Opposition comments about his prospects in the election. It was suggested that if his opponent, the present Prime Minister, were elected, the Bill might much more easily fall. Speculation continued and we had delay after delay from the Opposition.
In the long run, the present Prime Minister took the view that we should complete the passage of the Bill as rapidly as possible, but there still seemed to be some doubt because of other events. There was even a suggestion that there

might be a General Election, which would solve the whole issue.
It was against that background that we saw the delaying tactics in Committee. Although he was not there, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has obviously been well informed about them. He described them in his speech.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To put the record right, would not the hon. Gentleman also agree that, although we spent time discussing important matters affecting jobs, he and some of his wild Left-wing friends spent hours and hours talking about industrial democracy without anyone telling us precisely what it was?

Mr. Thorne: The absurdity of the hon. Gentleman's comment should be instantly obvious, Mr. Speaker, in that he speaks on the one hand of the employment of workers and on the other hand of industrial democracy, as if in some way they are in contradiction.
We were anxious to maintain the work force in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, but we were anxious also that the work force should participate in the discussions to be made in the two industries concerning public ownership. This was something in which they had never been able to participate under private enterprise.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, better than I do—you have been involved professionally a little longer than I have—politics is about power. The power that the Opposition have exercised when in Government, as the Leader of the House said earlier, has always been in the protection of their economic interests.
We are involved in the whole kerfuffle about the Bill only because the Conservative Opposition sense that their economic interests are involved in the debate. They know that when the aircraft and shipbuilding industries are in public hands the decisions will be taken not on the basis of profitability for a few shareholders but on the basis of what is in the interests of the people of Britain as a whole. On that basis, the aircraft workers in my constituency wholeheartedly support the early passage of the Bill in order that we can get on with the job of proper planning in these industries.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: One of the more delicious aspects of the debate—it has been rather difficult to find them—has been the Lord President's unwillingness to state whether his opposition to guillotines relating to constitutional matters will relate or refer to the devolution Bill which the Government have on the way. We are told that we shall have to wait and see. Certainly, I think that the Lord President may at the time have some difficulty in explaining his attitudes in relation to this as expressed in the debate.
In debates of this sort—I think that this is the second in which I have participated—there is a lot of double-speak. It is a question of Tory guillotines being good and Labour guillotines being bad, or vice versa. It all depends on which Benches one happens to be sitting on at any given time. It is certainly not a very enlightening experience to hear the pot calling the kettle black. Everyone knows that, when Governments change, so too will the arguments in the mouths of individual Members. Certainly it is a sterile business to spend so much time on something which is of a very negative nature.
I tend to look upon these things in a very practial way. I must have been psychic, because at the start of the long proceedings on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Indutries Bill—and arising out of experience of service on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-Lines Bill and the guillotine proceedings there—I wrote to the Secretary of State for Industry. I also sent a copy of my letter to the Shadow Secretary of State for Industry. In my letter I suggested that there should have been some form of voluntary timetable to take care of the proceedings in Committee. Although I did not say so, I felt that this should apply also to subsequent proceedings on Report stage and Third Reading.
I referred to a number of arguments made during the proceedings on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill. One of these was that the Clerk of the House, for instance, could be asked to certify the length of a given Bill according to experience in relation to Bills of similar size and complexity. That is not a job, I am sure, that the Clerk of the House would wish to undertake, but per-

haps he could do the necessary research work to enable Mr. Speaker to undertake it, in the same way as Mr. Speaker is responsible for the selection of amendments. It is the sort of job that by tradition and by willing consent of the House is given to Mr. Speaker on a basis of trust.
If that proposal had been followed, we might certainly have missed a lot of the lengthy proceedings which we have had in connection with the present Bill. When I made the suggestion in my letter, I thought that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill would last perhaps 25 to 30 sittings. But, much to my horror since I was a member of the Committee, it did not terminate until it had reached 58 sittings. Part of the reason, I think, is that the Bill was not particularly well drafted, but also I believe that the Opposition had a certain amount of responsibility for the amount of time it took in Committee.
We are dealing with a motion to which there are two sets of amendments, one of which, relating to the length of the proceedings, has been dropped by the Conservative Opposition. That implied, in my view, an acceptance of the guillotine as a parliamentary measure but a quarrel over the length of time which might well be given.
Instead, we now have an amendment from the Liberals which seems to be very fair and reasonable. It is to the effect that where amendments are on the Order Paper and have been called by Mr. Speaker there should be an opportunity for a vote on them, even if there has been no opportunity for debate. My hon. Friends and I intend to give suppot to that Liberal amendment if there is a Division. I hope, in fact, that there will not be a Division and that the Government will accept the amendment. I speak as a Member representing one of the smaller parties, but individual Members also have often seen their handiwork—on which they might have slaved for several seconds or hours—disappear without any opportunity for discussion or even decision upon it.
Three days have been given to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. Reference has been made to the fact that this was the time set aside for it before the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) exercised his ingenuity


in relation to the procedural matters which we have been considering over the last month and a half. Looking, however, at a recent example, we have passed a Finance Bill in about three and a half days, although I admit that in that instance the day was a much longer one than in the case of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. However, after 1 o'clock in the morning the numbers recorded in the votes begin to peter out. We tend to find that amendments are withdrawn and that there is not much decision-taking at that hour.
I regard this very much as a pragmatic matter. On this basis, although I feel that three days is perhaps a little on the short side, it is certainly not an unreasonable time.
The consequence of the guillotine motion not being carried would be that the debate would be extended into the autumn. As hon. Members will know, I am not a supporter of the principle of the Bill and I have suggested alternatives. Even worse would be to have uncertainty in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. The answer lies with Parliament. It can kill the Bill at Third Reading, if it is felt to be unacceptable, and allow the Government to come up with alternatives to take care of the difficult situations in these industries over the summer vacation. Alternatively, it can pass the Bill. At least the industries will know one way or another where they stand.
I am against the position taken by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne), who has now left the Chamber. But I must say that I feel that the way in which the early sittings of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill were paced was superb. The Opposition had put down a tremendous number of amendments, but, of course, they had to get to the compensation section, which was the last main stand before other matters were to be considered. The Bill was paced remarkably well during that period, so that enough time was left to the Opposition to deal with the compensation clauses, on which they had set a great deal of store and emphasis.
On this basis, we shall not oppose the Government on the main Question but we shall be voting with the Liberals on their very important amendment.

6.30 p.m.

Sir Michael Havers: There is very little time for me to deal with many of these suggestions that were made by hon. Members. I resist the temptation to follow up those points. For example, too much legislation is a subject about which I might speak for a long time. However, I should like to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). When all the Government amendments are down, the consequence of that huge number must mean that Opposition amendments will be crowded out. Although the Bill has one title and is, therefore, one Bill, it involves four different industries, all four being separately nationalised. Those facts in themselves make nonsense of the figures quoted by the Leader of the House.
One of the drawbacks of a guillotine is that to save time we must spend time. I noticed with interest that throughout the speech by the Leader of the House not a single word was said either about the fact that there were five Bills on one day or, even more important to my mind, about the fact that five Bills were wrapped up into three motions.
I shall be loyal to Mr. Speaker's ruling. However, it is important that the House should look back to the origin of Standing Order No. 44. In November 1971 the rules were changed in a number of small ways. The procedure debate involved a number of other points. There was little discussion of Standing Order No. 44.
The most important change that took place when the House approved the new Standing Order was to increase the time for debate on a guillotine motion from two hours to three hours.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) made a great point about five Bills being taken in one day. Is he aware that the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill and the Army Reserve Bill—both of which were debated in 1961 and 1962—were taken together and that the Transport Bill and the Housing (Scotland) Bill were both taken on 7th March 1962? Would he explain the difference between two Bills being taken at once and five Bills taken at once? The principle is the same.

Sir M. Havers: The answer is "Three". I regret giving up time when I have so little time for my speech.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered.

Sir M. Havers: I said that three was the difference.
I do not believe that in November 1971 it was intended that Standing Order No. 44 could justify a future Government including a number of Bills in one motion and that the debate would be limited to three hours. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the then Leader of the House, tells me that he did not appreciate that that would be the consequences. I do not believe that anybody who looked at the new Standing Order before it was approved by the House—certainly no one who took part in the debate in the House in November 1971—appreciated that that would be the consequence. If hon. Members had realised that the wording of the draft Standing Order was such that a Government could include any number of Bills in one timetable motion, and that that motion could be debated for only three hours, I do not believe that the House would have approved the new Standing Order.
I suppose that the Government might today have put all five Bills into one timetable motion. One asks "Why not?" I suspect the answer is that they do not have the face to do so, as the argument that it would not give enough time for debate would be completely unanswerable. Why have three motions? Why not put two Bills into one motion and three in the other? I believe that again we should have received exactly the same answer—that that would not have been fair to the House, to Back Benchers and to those who wanted to debate whether the Bills should be guillotined. If that answer is right, the danger of the consequences of Standing Order No. 44 becomes clearly demonstrated.
I believe that Parliament intended in November 1971 that, if a Bill was destined for "the chop" or the guillotine, the House should have three hours in which to discuss whether that Bill should be so guillotined. The consequence would have been that the Government would have no choice in deciding how long Parlia-

ment would have to discuss the guillotine motion. The consequences of what I believe to be the sloppy drafting in 1971 are that the Government now have the choice which it was not intended by the House that they should have. The Government now have the choice of how long they will allow the House to debate a guillotine for each Bill.
If the Government wanted to put 10 Bills into one guillotine motion, we would end up with 18 minutes' discussion for each Bill if the time was fairly divided. I cannot believe that that was the intention of the House of Commons when the Standing Order was approved. What has happened is that the Government are playing the game according to the rules but certainly not according to the spirit of the rules.
I suppose that at an appropriate stage in any year a Government may put their entire programme into one timetable motion and still have only three hours' debate. That gives to the Government a power which I do not believe was even intended by the House. The fault must lie in the drafting.
I do not suggest that Mr. Speaker's ruling is open to question. However, I suggest that the only way in which this matter may be dealt with fairly in the future is that the matter should go back to the Select Committee on Procedure and for that Committee to advise whether this is the right way of proceeding. The precedent created today is one that we may all live to regret very much in years to come.
It is clear that the Government are entitled, as a matter of interpretation, to do as they propose, but as a matter of morality and obligation to the House this should not have been done. The Government have deliberately cut down the time for debate on each Bill. In my opinion, this amounts to an abuse of Standing Order No. 44 and is a contempt of the House. The consequences must be damaging to the Leader of the House.
I have watched the career of the Leader of the House for years. I did not agree with the policies that he advised, but I admired and respected him throughout the time that I have had ay interest in politics. I thought that he truly believed in Parliament, and


especially in the rôle played by Parliament in providing a restraint on the Executive. He was the first to complain and fight when Parliament's privileges were under attack. I always believed that he was quick to defend the rights of Back Benchers. Those rights include the right to debate a motion cutting down the time for discussion of a Bill.
There have been enough quotations today. However, it is interesting to look back—this I cannot resist—to what the Leader of the House said on 25th January 1962. He said:
I have been reading some of the correspondence in the Daily Telegraph. I am not blaming the people who wrote these letters, but this correspondence shows a complete ignorance of the manner in which the affairs of the House of Commons are conducted, with the suggestion that all debate in the House is a waste of time, or very nearly a waste of time. If we accept that principle, we have some form of Fascist Government. The alternative to deciding things on the Floor of the House by open debate is some form of Fascist dictatorial government.
He went on to say:
all hon. Members should recognise the fundamental principle that we must decide what is going to happen by open debate on the Floor of the House. The Guillotine injures that because it interferes with free debate. Nobody can deny that.
I find it incredible that it should be the Leader of the House of all people who should seek not only to guillotine five Bills in one day but to reduce the time for debate from 15 hours to nine. I suggest that he might remember the words used by him about another Leader of the House in the debate on 25th January 1962. He said to the then Leader of the House:
The right hon. Gentleman should go to the Prime Minister and say, 'I should like to have an honest job again'."—[Official Report, 25th January 1962; Vol. 652, c. 457–58, 454.]
I hope that those who believe in Parliament and who put the rights of Parliament above the tyranny of the Executive will demonstrate their belief by voting against this unnecessary, undesirable and dangerous motion.

6.39 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry. (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) moved in good faith

an amendment which was taken up by the Tory Opposition for entirely different reasons. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson)—who, to judge from his speech, supports the Liberal amendment in the same good faith as the Liberals moved it—will not be bamboozled by the Tory Opposition into supporting it for the very reasons why the Tory Party has decided to withdraw all its amendments in favour of the Liberal amendment.
Members of minority Opposition parties should ask themselves why there is this unaccustomed generosity from the Tory Party. The answer is quite simple. The Tories are turning a well-intentioned Liberal amendment into an amendment designed specifically to achieve what the hon. Member for Dundee, East does not wish to achieve—namely, the wrecking of the final progress of the Bill. If the Liberal amendment is carried, it will be possible when the guillotine falls at the end of the Report stage for all Opposition amendments which have been selected to be voted on.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Kaufman: There are 130 Opposition amendments on the Notice Paper, and that would amount to Divisions lasting 30 hours. If this wrecking amendment, as the Tory Party seeks to transform the Liberal Party amendment, is carried, we can rely on the Tory Opposition to flood us with hundreds of amendments. We could spend days and nights in Divisions. That process would stretch ahead and would mean postponing the Third Reading of the Bill in a way which the hon. Member for Dundee, East does not wish to see achieved.

Mr. David Steel: I hope that the Minister will not think it a novel concept that if we move an amendment we intend to support it in the Lobby. Therefore, I am not moved by his entreaties. However, the Minister is wrong on his facts. The amendment clearly referred to amendments selected by Mr. Speaker, not to amendments tabled by the Tory Opposition. In any case, the Liberal Party does not intend to vote on every amendment that happens to have been selected by Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kaufman: I accept the hon. Gentleman's good faith. I have at no time criticised him for tabling his amendment. However, that amendment has now been adopted by the Tory Opposition, who, most suspiciously, have withdrawn all their amendments and have thereby transformed the Liberal amendment into a wrecking amendment.
Although I appreciate that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles and the hon. Member for Dundee, East would not divide in a random way on amendments, I can assure them that we know the Tory Party too well to believe that it would behave in a responsible way—certainly not in the way in which members of the minority parties tell us they would behave.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: May I ask the Minister to accept that as against the large total of Government amendments, amounting to 209—and, therefore, in that respect, the Government are the worst offenders—the SNP has tabled seven? Since we have restricted our amendments to only seven, that means that key amendments could be lost by the fact that they may not be discussed. Therefore, in the absence of any assurance, what else could we do than act in the way we have done?

Mr. Kaufman: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is in a dilemma. I also accept that he and his hon. Friend have tabled a small number of amendments. He and I were on the Standing Committee, and the hon. Gentleman certainly had a better attendance record than some. However, the Tory Opposition have not approached the Bill constructively. Indeed, they have adopted every conceivable way of frustrating this legislation. This is the latest course they have adopted. Therefore, although I completely accept the bona fides of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles in tabling his amendment, and although I am sure that the hon. Member for Dundee, East is following up the amendment in the spirit in which it was moved, that is certainly not the spirit in which other amendments have been withdrawn by the Tory Opposition in favour of the Liberal amendment. It is not for me to warn those hon. Gentlemen against the Tory Party. They know the situation only too well.
Having given that warning against the Conservatives, I at least congratulate them on their fastidious good taste in not fielding the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) in this debate. If the hon. Gentleman had spoken in this debate, even the most routine platitudes against timetable motions would have stuck in his throat. He would have been compelled to admit that the three days that we are providing for the remaining stages of the Bill in the timetable motion are more than he and his party were happy to accept for these same remaining stages and this same Bill without a timetable motion. We are providing for three days on remaining stages. When we first tabled these remaining stages for consideration for 25th May, it was on the clear understanding that they would be completed in two and a half days. This was accepted by the Tory Opposition.

Mr. Tom King: Rubbish.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) may think it rubbish, but it is true. The Liberal Party expressed no dissatisfaction with two and a half days, and the same went for the SNP. The hon. Member for Dundee, East has already indicated the way in which his party intend to behave on the motion.
Therefore, the Tories will be perpetrating hypocrisy of the first order if they vote against this generous timetable motion—generous by their own standards on this very Bill. The hon. Member for Henley knows all this, and that is why the Opposition did not field him for this debate.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Mr. Michael Heseltine (Henley) rose—

Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

Mr. Heseltine: Mr. Heseltinerose—

Mr. Speaker: If the Minister does not give way, the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) must resume his seat.

Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have completed this passage in my speech. I was saying that the Tory Opposition did not field the hon. Member for Henley because he knows too much about the way in which the Tories have conducted themselves on


the Bill. Instead, in this debate they did much better to field the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who has established his reputation in the House on the basis of third-class epigrams and first-class ignorance. The right hon. Gentleman attacked us for all the Government amendments we have tabled, but he should know that, of the 210 Government amendments, 100 are in response to assurances which have been given and 110 are technical or drafting amendments.
When we completed the Committee stage of the Bill, I circulated to the Opposition a dossier explaining all the amendments and stating why they had been tabled and the assurances to which they related. That had never been done before. The hon. Member for Henley described this as an improvement in the constitutional practice. He said:
It is a most refreshing innovation … which I welcome and applaud "— [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 27th April 1976; c. 2728.]
No Government have ever given more assistance than to an Opposition on amendments on Report stage than we have given. I made this material available to the Liberals and also to the SNP.

Mr. Heseltine: During the six months we have been deliberating on the Bill, I have reached innumerable agreements with the Minister about timing. Every one has been meticulously observed by the Opposition. For the record, I wish to say that at no time have I ever given any undertakings about the Report stage. I have held no discussions with the Minister of State about the Report stage. Therefore, the suggestions he has made are totally without foundation.

Mr. Kaufman: I entirely reject what the hon. Gentleman says. As he well knows, the discussions about Report took place not between him and me but through the usual channels. I was not involved in them in any way. As for the hon. Gentleman now getting up and claiming that he made meticulous agreements with me in Standing Committee, the one agreement he flatly refused ever to give me, until we reached the forty-ninth sitting, was on the occasion when his Chief Whip sent him to me to make an agreement on a terminal date. Again and again he said to me "I will not give you

a terminal date for this Report stage." I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees. That went on until the end of the forty-ninth sitting. At the end of that sitting, his right hon. Friend sent him to me and then offered to agree a terminal date. Not until we had had more sittings than on three Bills put together, as my right hon. Friend the Lord President has pointed out—

Mr. Heseltine: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that even now I will not give him a terminal date for the Bill.

Mr. Kaufman: We are about to give the hon. Gentleman one.

Mr. Berry: Mr. Berryrose—

Mr. Kaufman: No, I shall not give way at this moment, but if I have time I will do so because I have much regard for the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry). [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) had better flutter out somewhere again, because we are debating serious matters. I want to continue my remarks, which I believe to be relevant to what the hon. Member for Southgate would like to say, but I shall try to ensure there is time for him to intervene. The House knows very well that this Bill has not only been fully debated but has been debated in 58 sittings in Standing Committee, the all-time record in the history of this House of Commons.
Those sittings were in no way curtailed by the Government. Not once did we have a sitting when the Opposition demanded that we should go on. We could have had 60 sittings, not 58, but for an Opposition request to us to forgo two sittings in March and April, a request to which we acceded in the helpful spirit in which we always meet Opposition requests. On the single occasion when the Committee sat beyond 7 p.m., one Tory Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Bridgwater, described meeting at that hour of the evening—10 p.m.—as an obscene procedure, showing how much the Tories wanted to debate the Bill at great length. Not only did the Government give the Opposition all the time they wanted to debate the Bill in Committee; we withheld closure motions until Clause 42, because it was on that clause that the Opposition began to filibuster.


This was pointed out by the hon. Member for Dundee, East when he said that when the Committee reached the compensation clauses something, though he was not sure what, seemed to go differently.
On this 55-clause Bill,. we completed 41 clauses by the thirty-fifth sitting in Committee. The remainder of the Bill took 24 sittings. It was on Clause 42 that we began to move closures. This was inevitable, because on that fairly routine clause, with many precedents, the Opposition spent 12½ hours of debate during six sittings. The hon. Member for Dundee, East showed his view of the Tory tactics by voting for six of the 10 closure motions we moved in Committee and voting against only one. We could have had 11, because the Chairman of the Committee granted us an eleventh, but the Opposition requested us not to proceed with it and in our spirit of constant co-operation we again did as the Opposition asked.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East, from the Scottish National Party, showed what he thought of the obstructive Tory tactics by voting against the Government on only one of our closure motions. The Liberal Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) showed what he thought of the Tory Opposition tactics by staying away from the Committee a good deal the time. I am not jeering at him on this. He missed 12 of the 24 sittings, from Clause 42 onwards, and I do not blame him, because he must have had very many better things to do than sit listening to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who showed how seriously he takes the problems of the shipbuilding industry, an industry whose problems he is paid to take seriously as parliamentary adviser to the Shipbuilders and Repairers National Association.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Mr. Teddy Taylorrose—

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman showed that by his discussion at length

of a maiden aunt's horse, raspberries and Scottish law cases going back to 1829.

Before the Committee stage began, the hon. Member for Dundee, East wrote to my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I give way to the hon. Member for Cathcart.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: My interest in this industry as parliamentary adviser, which I took long before I came here, was declared at the beginning of the Committee sittings. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that he was constantly saying that the shipbuilding industry was desperate to be nationalised?

Mr. Kaufman: The workers in the shipbuilding industry are desperate to be nationalised, and the hon. Gentleman is frustrating employment on the Clyde by what he is doing. That is how much he cares about the shipbuilding industry that he is paid to represent in this House.
Nobody can claim that the Bill was railroaded through Committee. The evidence points the other way, to a Government almost unnnecessarily accommodating in their willingness to maintain an atmosphere of good will. No one can claim that this Bill is being railroaded through its remaining stages since the Government are providing more time with a guillotine than the Opposition were willing to accept without a guillotine.
I hope that in the interests of consistency and fair play the minority Opposition parties will support the motion. I do not expect any kind of consistency or fair play from the Tory Party, which Benjamin Disraeli described as an organised hypocrisy".

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of them pursuant to Standing Order No. 44 (Allocation to Bills).

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 311.

Division No. 258.]
AYES
[6.56 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bain, Mrs Margaret
Benyon, W.


Ailken, Jonathan
Baker, Kenneth
Berry, Hon Anthony


Alison, Michael
Banks, Robert
Bitten, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Beith, A. J.
Biggs-Davison, John


Arnold, Tom
Bell, Ronald
Blaker, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Body, Richard


Awdry, Daniel
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Boscawen, Hon Robert




Bottomley, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Boyson, Or Rhodes (Brent)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Morgan, Geraint


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hannam, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Braine, Sir Bernard
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Brittan, Leon
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Brotherton, Michael
Havers, Sir Michael
Mudd, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hawkins, Paul
Neave, Airey


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hayhoe, Barney
Nelson, Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Neubert, Michael


Buck, Antony
Henderson, Douglas
Newton, Tony


Budgen, Nick
Heseltine, Michael
Normanton, Tom


Bulmer, Esmond
Hicks, Robert
Nott, John


Burden, F. A.
Higgins, Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Holland, Philip
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Carlisle, Mark
Hooson, Emlyn
Osborn, John


Carson, John
Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow West)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Channon, Paul
Howell, David (Guildford)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pardoe, John


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Parkinson, Cecil


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Penhaligon, David


Clegg, Walter
Hurd, Douglas
Percival, Ian


Cockcroft, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pink, R. Bonner


Cope, John
James, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Cordle, John H.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Price, David (Eastieigh)


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby
Prior, Rt Hon James


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Crawford, Douglas
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Raison, Timothy


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rathbone, Tim


Crouch, David
Jopling, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kellett_Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Reid, George


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kilfedder, James
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Drayson, Burnaby
Kimball, Marcus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Dunlop, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Durant, Tony
Kirk, Sir Peter
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dykes, Hugh
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Elliott, Sir William
Lamont, Norman
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Emery, Peter
Lane, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Eyre, Reginald
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lawson, Nigel
Royle, Sir Anthony


Farr, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sainsbury, Tim


Fell, Anthony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lloyd, Ian
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Forman, Nigel
MacCormick, Iain
Shepherd, Colin


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McCrlndle, Robert
Shersby, Michael


Fox, Marcus
McCusker, H.
Silvester, Fred


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


Freud, Clement
MacGregor, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Fry, Peter
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Gardiner, George(Reigate)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Speed, Keith


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Madel, David
Spence, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Marten, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mates, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mather, Carol
Stainton, Keith


Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Angus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Goodhew, Victor
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stanley, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawby, Ray
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mayhew, Patrick
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stokes, John


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter
Stradling Thomas, J.


Griffiths, Eldon
Miscampbell, Norman
Tapsell, Peter


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Grylls, Michael
Molyneaux, James
Tebbit, Norman


Hall, Sir John
Monro, Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter



Montgomery, Fergus
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret







Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Wiggln, Jerry


Thompson, George
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Wall, Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas


Townsend, Cyril D.
Waiters, Dennis
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Trotter, Neville
Warren, Kenneth
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Tugendhat, Christopher
Watt, Hamish
Younger, Hon George


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Weatherill, Bernard



Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wells, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Viggers, Peter
Welsh, Andrew
Mr. Cyril Smith and


Wakeham, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Mr. Richard Wainwright.


Walder, David (Clitheroe)






NOES


Abse, Leo
Doig, Peter
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Allaun, Frank
Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Anderson, Donald
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Archer, Peter
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunn, James A.
Judd, Frank


Ashley, Jack
Dunnett, Jack
Kaufman, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kelley, Richard


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Eadie, Alex
Kerr, Russell


Atkinson, Norman
Edge, Geoff
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bagier, Gordon A. T,
Edwards Robert (Wolv SE)
Kinnock, Neil


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lambie, David


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lamborn, Harry


Bates, Alf
English, Michael
Lamond, James


Bean, R. E.
Ennals, David
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lee, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, John (Newton)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Bishop, E. S.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Boardman, H.
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Filch, Alan (Wigan)
Lipton, Marcus


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Litterick, Tom


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Flannery, Martin
Lomas, Kenneth


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Loyden, Eddie


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Luard, Evan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Ford, Ben
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Forrester, John
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McDonald, Miss Oonagh


Buchan, Norman
Freeson, Reginald
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Buchanan, Richard
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
MacKenzie, Gregor


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
George, Bruce
Mackintosh, John P.


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Gilbert, Dr John
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell, Ian
Ginsburg, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Canavan, Dennis
Golding. John
McNamara, Kevin


Cant, R. B.
Gould, Bryan
Madden, Max


Carmichael, Neil
Gourlay, Harry
Magee, Bryan


Carter, Ray
Graham, Ted
Maguire. Frank (Fermanagh)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mahon, Simon


Cartwright, John
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mallalleu, J. P. W.


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Grocott, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth


Clemitson, Ivor
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Marquand, David


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hardy, Peter
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Cohen, Stanley
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Coleman, Donald
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Maynard, Miss Joan


Concannon, J. D.
Hatton, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Conlan, Bernard
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Henley. Rt Hon Denis
Mendelson, John


Corbett, Robin
Heffer, Eric S.
Mikardo, Ian


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hooley, Frank
Millan, Bruce


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Horam, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Crawshaw, Richard
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm'H)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Cronin, John
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Huckfield. Les
Moonman, Eric


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Moyle, Roland


Dalyell, Tam
Hunter, Adam
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Davidson, Arthur
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Newens, Stanley


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jackson, Coiln (Brighouse)
Noble, Mike


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Oakes, Gordon


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Janner, Greville
Ogden, Eric


Deakins, Eric
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
O'Halloran, Michael


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Orbach, Maurice


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
John, Brynmor
Ovenden, John


Dempsey, James
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Owen, Dr David







Padley, Walter
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Urwin, T. W.


Palmer, Arthur
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Varley, Rt Hon Erie G.


Park, George
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Parker, John
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Parry, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Pavitt, Laurie
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Sillars, James
Ward, Michael


Pendry, Tom
Silverman, Julius
Watkins, David


Perry, Ernest
Skinner, Dennis
Watkinson, John


Phipps, Dr Colin
Small, William
Weetch, Ken


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Weitzman, David


Prescott, John
Snape, Peter
Wellbeloved, James


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Spearing, Nigel
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Price, William (Rugby)
Spriggs, Leslie
White, James (Pollok)


Radice, Giles
Stallard, A. W.
Whitehead, Phillip


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Whitlock, William


Richardson, Miss Jo
Stoddart, David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stott, Roger
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Strang, Gavin
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Williams, Sir Thomas


Roderick, Caerwyn
Swain, Thomas
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Rooker, J. W.
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Roper, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Woodall, Alec


Rose, Paul B.
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Woof, Robert


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Tierney, Sydney
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rowlands, Ted
Tinn, James
Young, David (Bolton E)


Sandelson, Neville
Tomlinson, John



Sedgemore, Brian
Tomney, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Selby, Harry
Torney, Tom
Mr. James Hamilton and


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Tuck, Raphael
Mr. Joseph Harper.




Question accordingly negatived.


Main Question put accordingly:—


The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 294.

Division No. 259.]
AYES
[7.14 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
English, Michael


Allaun, Frank
Clemitson, Ivor
Ennals, David


Anderson, Donald
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Archer, Peter
Cohen, Stanley
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Armstrong, Ernest
Coleman, Donald
Evans, John (Newton)


Ashley, Jack
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Ashton, Joe
Concannon, J. D.
Faulds, Andrew


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Conlan, Bernard
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Atkinson, Norman
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Corbett, Robin
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Flannery, Martin


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)


Bates, Alf
Crawshaw, Richard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bean, R. E.
Cronin, John
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Ford, Ben


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Forrester, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Cryer, Bob
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Bishop, E. S.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Freeson, Reginald


Boardman, H.
Dalyell, Tam
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davidson, Arthur
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
George, Bruce


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Gilbert, Dr John


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ginsburg, David


Bradley, Tom
Davit, Clinton (Hackney C)
Golding, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Deakins, Eric
Gould, Bryan


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Gourlay, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Graham, Ted


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Dempsey, James
Grant, John (Islington C)


Buchan, Norman
Doig, Peter
Grocott, Bruce


Buchanan, Richard
Dormand, J. D.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hardy, Peter


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dunn, James A.
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Campbell, Ian
Dunnett, Jack
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Canavan, Dennis
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hatton, Frank


Cant, R. B.
Eadie, Alex
Hayman, Mrs Helena


Carter, Ray
Edge, Geoff
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Edwards Robert (Wolv SE)
Heffer, Eric S.


Cartwright, John
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hooley, Frank


Carmichael, Nell
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Horam, John







Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm'H)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Huckfield, Les
Maynard, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Meacher, Michael
Sillars, James


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Silverman, Julius


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mendelson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mikardo, Ian
Small, William


Hunter, Adam
Millan, Bruce
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Snape, Peter


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Spearing, Nigel


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, lichen)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Moonman, Eric
Stallard, A. W.


Janner, Greville
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stoddart, David


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stott, Roger


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Moyle, Roland
Strang, Gavin


John, Brynmor
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Newens, Stanley
Swain, Thomas


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Noble, Mike
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Oakes, Gordon
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ogden, Eric
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Judd, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Kaufman, Gerald
Orbach, Maurice
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Kelley, Richard
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tlerney, Sydney


Kerr, Russell
Ovenden, John
Tinn, James


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Owen, Dr David
Tomlinson, John


Kinnock, Neil
Padley, Walter
Tomney, Frank


Lambie, David
Palmer, Arthur
Torney, Tom


Lamborn, Harry
Park, George
Tuck, Raphael


Lamond, James
Parker, John
Urwin, T. W.


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Parry, Robert
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Leadbitter, Ted
Pavitt, Laurie
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Lee, John
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Pendry, Tom
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Perry, Ernest
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Ward, Michael


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Watkins, David


Lipton, Marcus
Prescott, John
Watkinson, John


Litterick, Tom
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Weetch, Ken


Lomas, Kenneth
Price, William (Rugby)
Weitzman, David


Loyden, Eddie
Radice, Giles
Wellbeloved, James


Luard, Evan
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Richardson, Miss Jo
White, James (Pollok)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitehead, Phillip


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Whitlock, William


McCartney, Hugh
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


McDonald, Miss Oonagh
Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Roderick, Caerwyn
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


MacKenzie, Gregor
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Williams, Sir Thomas


Mackintosh, John P.
Rooker, J. W.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Maciennan, Robert
Roper, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rose, Paul B.
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


McNamara, Kevin
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Madden, Max
Rowlands, Ted
Woodall, Alec


Magee, Bryan
Sandelson, Neville
Woof, Robert


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Sedgemore, Brian
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mahon, Simon
Selby, Harry
Young, David (Bolton E)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)



Marks, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marquand, David
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. James Hamilton and


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Bottomley, Peter
Churchill, W. S.


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Alison, Michael
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Clark, William (Croydon S)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bradford, Rev Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Arnold, Tom
Braine, Sir Bernard
Clegg, Walter


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Brittan, Leon
Cockcroft, John


Awdry, Daniel
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Baker, Kenneth
Brotherton, Michael
Cope, John


Banks, Robert
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cordle, John H.


Beith, A. J.
Bryan, Sir Paul
Cormack, Patrick


Bell, Ronald
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Costain, A. P.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Buck, Antony
Critchley, Julian


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Budgen, Nick
Crouch, David


Benyon, W.
Bulmer, Esmond
Crowder, F. P.


Berry, Hon Anthony
Burden, F. A.
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)


Biffen, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Biggs-Davison, John
Carlisle, Mark
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Blaker, Peter
Carson, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Body, Richard
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Drayson, Burnaby


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Channon, Paul
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward







Dunlop, John
Kilfedder, James
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Durant, Tony
Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dykes, Hugh
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ronton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kirk, Sir Peter
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Elliott, Sir William
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Emery, Peter
Knight, Mrs Jill
Ridsdale, Julian


Eyre, Reginald
Knox, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lamont, Norman
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lane, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Farr, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fell, Anthony
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lawson, Nigel
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Ian
Royle, Sir Anthony


Forman, Nigel
Loveridge, John
Sainsbury, Tim


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Luce, Richard
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fox, Marcus
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Scott, Nicholas


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McCrindle, Robert
Scott-Hopkins, James


Freud, Clement
McCusker, H.
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fry, Peter
Macfarlane, Nell
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
MacGregor, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Shepherd, Colin


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shersby, Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Silvester, Fred


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Madel, David
Sims, Roger


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sinclair, Sir George


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Marten, Neil
Skeet, T. H. H.


Goodhart, Philip
Mates, Michael
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Goodhew, Victor
Mather, Carol
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Goodlad, Alastair
Maude, Angus
Speed, Keith


Gorst, John
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Spence, John


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mawby, Ray
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mayhew, Patrick
Sproat, lain


Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stainton, Keith


Griffiths, Eldon
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mills, Peter
Stanley, John


Grist, Ian
Miscampbell, Norman
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hall, Sir John
Moate, Roger
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Molyneaux, James
Stokes, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Fergus
Tapsell, Peter


Hannam, John
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morgan, Geraint
Tebbit, Norman


Hastings, Stephen
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Temple-Morris, Peter


Havers, Sir Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mudd, David
Townsend, Cyril D.


Heseltine, Michael
Neave, Alrey
Trotter, Neville


Hicks, Robert
Nelson, Anthony
Tugendhat, Christopher


Higgins, Terence L.
Neubert, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Holland, Philip
Newton, Tony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hooson, Emlyn
Normanton, Tom
Viggers, Peter


Hordern, Peter
Nott, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Onslow, Cranley
Wakeham, John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Osborn, John
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wall, Patrick


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Walters, Dennis


Hurd, Douglas
Pardoe, John
Warren, Kenneth


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pattie, Geoffrey
Weatherill, Bernard


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Penhaligon, David
Wells, John


James, David
Percival, Ian
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Jerry


Jessel, Toby
Pink, R. Bonner
Winterton, Nicholas


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Young, Sir G. (Eating, Acton)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Younger, Hon George


Jopling, Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis



Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Raison, Timothy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rathbone, Tim
Mr. Spencer Le Merchant and


Kellett_Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.


Kershaw, Anthony

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Bill:—

Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolutions as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than Friday 23rd July.

(3) The resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, and whether or not the resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Dilatory Motions

2. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

3.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Bill for one hour after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period under this paragraph.

(3) If an allotted day for the Bill is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under this paragraph, and the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall also be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion.

Private Business

4. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on

an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill, or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings.

Conclusion of Proceedings

5.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(b) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If at Seven o'clock on an allotted Day, any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.

If a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over to Seven o'clock on an allotted Day, or to any later time under sub-paragraph (3) above, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day at any hour falling after the beginning of the Proceedings on that Motion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

6.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the


Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and the last foregoing paragraph shall apply as if the Proceedings were proceedings on the Bill on an allotted Day.

(2) If on an allotted Day on which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time, no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

7. Nothing in this Order or in a Resolution of the Business Committee shall—

(a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

8.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted Day, no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

9. In this Order—
'allotted day' means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the Proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day,
'the Bill' means the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill;
'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

HEALTH SERVICES BILL AND DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

7.28 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bills:—

A. HEALTH SERVICES BILL

Committee

1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Health Services Bill (in this Order referred to as 'the Health Bill') is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before the 3rd day of August 1976.

(2) The Standing Committee on the Health Bill shall meet at half-past Ten o'clock and half-past Four o'clock on each day (except Mondays and Fridays) on which the House sits on or after the 21st day of July 1976, until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.

(3) At a Sitting of the Standing Committee at which any Proceedings on the Health Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the Proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(4) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Member of the Government and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

(5) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule but the resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee.

(6) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Health Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(7) On the conclusion of the Proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Health Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at eleven o'clock on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall he taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the


Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolutions as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Health Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the second day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Health Bill to the House.

B. DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL

3.—(1) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Dock Work Regulation Bill (in this Order referred to as 'the Dock Bill') shall be completed in one allotted day, and shall be brought to a conclusion at eleven o'clock on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolutions as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Dock Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the 23rd day of July 1976.

C. GENERAL

Resolutions of Business Committee

4.—(1) The resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) for either Bill may be varied by a further report so made, whether or not within the time specified for that Bill in paragraph 2(2) or 3(2) (as the case may be) of this Order, and whether or not the resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(2) The resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of either Bill are taken.

Dilatory Motions

5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on either Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

6.—(1) On an allotted day for either Bill paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on that Bill for one hour after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which Proceedings on either Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period under this paragraph.

(3) If an allotted day for either Bill is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time

equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the period during which Proceedings on that Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under this paragraph, and the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on that Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall also be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion.

Private Business

7. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day for either Bill shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on that Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on that Bill, or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the Completion of those Proceedings.

Conclusion of Proceedings

8.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(b) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If, at Seven o'clock on an allotted day for either Bill, any Proceedings which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.

(4) If a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over to Seven o'clock on an allotted day for either Bill, or to any later time under subparagraph (3) above, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on that Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day at any hour falling after the beginning of the Proceedings on that Motion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motions.

Supplemental Orders

9.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and the last foregoing paragraph shall apply as it applies to Proceedings on one of the Bills on an allotted day for that Bill.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on either Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

10. Nothing in this Order or in a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee or the Business Committee shall—

(a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on one of the Bills or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on either Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

11.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day for either Bill, no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

12. In this Order—
'allotted day', in relation to either Bill, means any day (other than a Friday) on which that Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the day provided that in each case a Motion for allotting time to

the Proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day has been agreed on a previous day;
'the Bills' means the Health Services Bill and the Dock Work Regulation Bill;
'Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee on the Health Bill;
'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

It is my intention to deal with the Health Services Bill and to leave my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who will wind up, to speak about the Dock Work Regulation Bill.

Before turning to the terms of the motion on the Health Services Bill I should like to go over some of the history of the Bill. It had a long gestation period. First, there came from a broad cross-section of the non-medical staff of the National Health Service considerable criticism of the present system of queue jumping in NHS hospitals. In response to this the Labour Party developed a new policy of phasing out pay beds. In February 1974 we promised to
phase out private practice from the hospital service

and in the October manifesto we stated that the Labour Government
is now working out a scheme for phasing private beds out of these hospitals".

The Health Services Bill fulfils the letter and spirit of these commitments. When the Bill was given a Second Reading on 27th April we began the first stage on that commitment. Tonight's motion is to secure that the parliamentary process is carried through with a due sense of urgency, but without unreasonable restrictions on debate.

The philosophy which led to the preparation of this Bill was very well expressed by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) when she said in the debate on the Address back in November 1974 that
the overriding purpose of social policy must be to build the cohesive society. We shall unite the nation only to the extent that we are willing to share things, to share common risks, to share common services, to share a common environment. We shall never unite it by creating two standards in our services, two standards of education, two standards of social services, two standards of health care.
That is why we are committed in our manifesto to phase out pay beds from the National


Health Service … We shall do so not out of envy or ideological spite but because it is wrong that those who have money should be able to jump the queue. It is wrong to have two standards of care for two classes of patients in our hospitals."—[Official Report, 1st November 1974; Vol. 880, c. 545.]

I have repeated her words tonight because she put it far better than I can.

On Second Reading I reminded the House that many staff who work in the NHS have often been offended by what they have seen as the operation of a system opposed to the principle of public service, and many more have been offended by what they have seen as the abuses of the NHS which have followed—of queue jumping, of greater attention to private patients than to NHS patients, and generally by the implication of dual standards. The history of the process of consultations which led in April this year to the publication of the Health Services Bill is familiar to hon. Members. As I said when the Bill was introduced, the means by which the National Health Service and private sector health care are to be separated have gained a great deal from the consultation that has taken place since the publication of the consultative document in August 1975.

The Bill has been drafted to implement the proposals which my predecessor announced on 15th December 1975, and thus to fulfil the promise of legislation which was given in the Queen's Speech on 19th November that year. As hon. Members are aware, those proposals had been drawn up in the light of consultations, through Lord Goodman, with representatives of the medical profession, and the Bill safeguards the right of doctors and dentists to work both privately and in the National Health Service.

The Bill represents a compromise: I am not embarrassed about that, but glad of it. The proposals which formed the compromise, on which it is based, were regarded by the consultants in their ballot as an acceptable basis for legislation, if legislation had to come.

Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise us whether the Secretary of State is reading from the right brief? He is making a speech that ought to have been made on Second Reading. He has not yet said a word about why the guillotine should be applied, but has been

speaking about why the Bill should be approved. We are not debating that at present.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I have no doubt that the Secretary of State has heard what has been said.

Mr. Ennals: Of course I shall be dealing with why the guillotine has been brought in. One of the most important reasons is that this is an important Bill and we should recognise the disadvantage to the NHS and the trouble and disturbance which would be created if commitments entered into by this House were not fulfilled before the end of the Session.
That is my argument. If the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) is here to argue only about the timetable, he has his priorities wrong.

Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has just said that if I am here merely to argue about the timetable motion, I have my priorities wrong. Could you rule on what is the subject of this debate? Is it the Bill, or is it merely the timetable motion? The Minister does not seem to take the view that we are discussing only the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was under the impression that we were debating timetable motions.

Mr. Ennals: We are discussing a timetable motion on two Bills. The essence of the Bill is part of the reason for the timetable. I have no hesitation in arguing the case for the Bill on the Floor of the House. We want to ensure that it becomes the law of the land.
I turn now to the form of the timetable motion. This is in its details in accordance with precedents except for one aspect, which I will explain. When the Standing Committee began, on 18th May, I said that it was the Government's hope to send the Bill to another place early in July. For a Bill of 19 principal clauses and two principal schedules, that was not an unreasonable target. After consultation, I thought it wise to start with two morning sittings a week, and the Committee so resolved.
But I gave notice then that after a time we should review progress and consider whether we needed to have a third


sitting in a week. This was a very normal, civilised approach. By the fourth sitting, the Committee had dealt with only Clause 1 and was in the middle of Schedule 1. Clearly we were progressing far too slowly.
I gave notice that I would move a new sittings motion on 8th June. I found that the Opposition had decided to oppose that motion, in spite of the fact that it was in accordance with discussions that we had had. So I deferred moving it in the hope that the Opposition would recognise that the will of the House, which gave the Bill a Second Reading by a majority of 20, should prevail. On 15th June, I asked the Committee to agree to sit additionally in the afternoons one day a week, three sittings a week in all, not excessive. If that motion had been agreed, there would by tonight have been 23 sittings instead of 17. With the afternoon sittings going on to an average of 7.30, that would have totalled 60½ hours. With later sittings, it is more likely that we should have chalked up about 75 hours by now.
In fact we have had only 42½ hours. The Conservative Opposition and the Ulster Member voted against my motion to sit three times a week. The Chairman, in accordance with precedent, gave a casting vote in favour of the existing sittings motion. Progress has continued to be slow. We spent 13 hours on Clause 4 alone. We have had constituency speeches from some hon. Members. We have had speeches reiterating very much the same Second Reading arguments, sometimes warned for being out of order, rarely quite on the point. We have dealt with only one main schedule and six clauses. There are 17 clauses and a main schedule still to be dealt with. I think it is becoming increasingly clear why in these circumstances the Government felt bound to put down a timetable motion on this Bill.
The purpose of the motion is not only to set a time for the completion of the Committee stage, but, just as important, to ensure that there is adequate time for debate of the remaining clauses and schedules. It is the Oppositon who, by refusing to agree to additional sittings of the Standing Committee, have sought to deny to the Committee the time for debate which the Bill clearly needed. It is they who have insisted on the leisurely

pace we have seen in Committee Room 10. Tonight's motion gives us seven sittings more than we should have had if we had been forced to continue with two sittings a week—that is a minimum of 17 extra hours for debate.
It has been sheer irresponsibility on the part of the Opposition to try to curtail the time available for debate as they have. The only way left for the Government to ensure that the remaining clauses of the Bill are properly and thoroughly considered is to come back to the House as we are doing tonight. Despite the difficulties, I believe that we have improved those parts of the Bill which we have considered in Committee. Indeed, a Bill can hardly ever have got so far with so few commitments for possible revision on Report.
I made it clear when I published the Bill and on Second Reading that we should not depart from the principles of the proposals published by my predecessor on 15th December and embodied in the Bill. If we were to do so, we should be taking a path—one way or the other—to fresh division and damage to the NHS. That is why the Government have strenuously resisted Opposition attempts to distort the principles of the Bill—for example, to put a new duty on the board or the Government to promote private medicine.
Equally, I have argued against amendments from Labour Members which would have led away from the 15th December proposals in the opposite direction. Of the amendments tabled by the Opposition 139 have been withdrawn or not called and 35 negatived, six have been agreed to, as have 16 Government amendments. The Government amendments, including some still to be debated, do not affect the principle of the Bill, but have been made, following talks with representatives of the professions, to clarify and improve the working of the Bill.
In view of what the BMA said in its resolution at its annual representative meeting last week, I must emphasise that there has been ample time for those principally affected by the Bill—both the professions and the independent hospitals—to express their views. We did not publish the Bill until 12th April, by which time there had been over two years since our election with this commitment.
Since publication I have met representatives from the BMA and BDA on no fewer than four occasions to discuss different aspects of the Bill, in particular those which both sides agreed could be improved by amendments to the Bill.
The amendments made reflect the degree of consultation in which I have taken part. Also, where amendments were not necessary, the Government have given clear undertakings. Let me mention a few of the main items. We clarified the provisions for appointment of deputies and the committees of the Health Services Board to stress its independence. We gave undertakings about the method of consultation on appointments. We have tabled amendments acceptable to the profession to confirm the status of general practitioners' private practice when they use National Health Service health centres. We have clarified the instructions to the Health Services Board for the preparation of its proposals on phasing out facilities for outpatient work.
We have tabled amendments to Part III of the Bill, as I undertook to do on Second Reading, to meet the anxiety of the independent developers that for their smaller schemes, which we judge will not damage the National Health Service, the procedure in the Bill was unduly cumbersome. We have decided that the Health Service Commissioner should have the board within his scope. Amendments to Schedule 1 will be moved on Report to that effect. There has been wide consultation, and as a result many changes have been made in the Bill to ensure that it is more effective.
Let me return to the timetable motion. It directs the Committee to report the Health Services Bill to the House by 3rd August, over three months after Second Reading. It directs the Committee to sit twice daily, except on Mondays and Fridays. This latter provision—it is paragraph 1(2)—is designed to overcome the difficulty that we have met with already—namely, that the Committee might refuse to alter the present sittings motion. With this direction on sittings the Committee will have up to 12 more sittings.
If Members feel that this is a last minute rush and hard grind. I point out that the total number of sittings on this basis will be 29 by 3rd August. If the Com-

mittee had already stepped up its sittings, as I asked on 15th June, and which was denied by the Opposition, it would have sat exactly 29 times by 3rd August.
The purpose of that part of the motion is to catch up on the time we were forced to lose because the Opposition insisted on going at a leisurely pace. They denied to the Committee the opportunity of the very consultation that they had insisted we should effectively take. That being the case, I think that Opposition Members should be very careful about their opposition to the motion.
It is, as I have said, the Government's responsibility to ensure adequate time for debate, to concentrate into the next two weeks well over half as much time again as we have been able to give to the Bill in the past two months. It is equally a responsibility of the Government to ensure that the Bill passes through all its stages and gets on to the statute book in the autumn. There would be great dismay, and indeed bitterness, among thousands of those who work in the health service if the Government failed in their responsibility, a responsibility given them by the House on Second Reading. We must put this legislation on the statute book so that pay beds cease to be the divisive issue they have been for so long within our NHS.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Secretary of State has offered us two excuses and one reason for the guillotine. One of his two excuses was that some of my hon. Friends have been making what he called constituency speeches. It is the first time that I have ever heard the excuse put forward for the introduction of a guillotine that hon. Members have chosen to illustrate their arguments with examples from their own constituencies. If that is the level of tolerance of the right hon. Gentleman, he is a very sensitive Secretary of State indeed.
His second excuse, which he dwelt on at rather greater length, was that he failed to muster a sufficient majority to get a sittings motion for afternoon sittings. Thereby hangs a crucial point not only for this Bill but for other of the Bills now subject to guillotine motions. When a Government have such a paper-thin majority that they cannot


be sure of commanding a majority in Committee, they have no right to introduce highly controversial legislation. To say that because the Opposition resisted the sittings motion it is necessary for the guillotine to fall is a travesty of an argument.
The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he should not have introduced the Bill. He did not have to do so. If he had taken the wise course and referred the issue of pay beds to the Royal Commission, as should have been done, none of these difficulties would have arisen.
Apart from excuses, the right hon. Gentleman gave one reason for our being faced with a guillotine motion today—namely, what he called "the long gestation period." From the moment that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) announced this policy on 5th May 1975 to the stage when the Bill finally arrived in Committee was a period of nearly 14 months. She announced the policy on 5th May; on 15th August she published the consultative document. There was uproar at that stage. By 15th December compromise proposals had been hammered out—the so-called Goodman proposals.
It was the end of February 1976 before the BMA was able to complete and announce the result of the consultants' ballot. It was not until 5th April that the Bill was introduced to the House. On 27th April it had its Second Reading—over three weeks later—and it was 18th June before it started consideration in Committee. One reason for the delay was that the Government got into a muddle over the number of their Members they were entitled to have in Committee. "Long gestation period" indeed! We have seen a period of unparalleled delay in the introduction and getting under way of a Bill. That is why we are having a guillotine. Let us make no mistake about that.
The attitude of Labour Members was succinctly and contemptuously put by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), whom I am glad to see in his place. When the Leader of the House announced the business for this week last Thursday the hon. Gentleman asked:
Is my right hon. Friend aware, further, that there is a greater danger to this Parliament

from fatuous and superficial scrutiny of Bills than from the expedition of business which the people of the country demand?"—[Official Report, 15th July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 912.]
That was the true voice of Socialist arrogance. It is no accident that the hon. Gentleman has been a close associate of the Leader of the House for many years.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: It is no accident at all. It is a matter of choice by me and, I hope, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The fact is that there was nothing contemptuous in my contribution. I was merely pointing out that the nation and the Parliament have nothing to gain by the loquacious repetition of irrelevances that the right hon. Gentleman knows, as I well know, damages in Committee and on the Floor of the House the thoroughgoing scrutiny which is the function of the House. It might take longer and should be permitted to take longer if it was not for the time that we wasted on exchanging insults and swopping each other's speeches.

Mr. Jenkin: I should accept that from the hon. Gentleman if I felt that he had the slightest idea of drawing a distinction between loquacity and thorough-going scrutiny. His comment epitomises the Socialist creed—namely, a total intolerance of those who disagree with it, coupled with the arrogance that it represents the will of the people. It is that attitude that beyond all else makes the Labour Party unfit to be trusted with power.
The Guardian, usually one of the Labour Party's supporters, described the multi-guillotine as
a measure of a desperately cynical kind".
In fact, it is only the latest in a long catalogue of parliamentary thuggery by this Government: their refusal to recognise that they have lost their majority in Committees; their decision to suspend the rules of the House with the aircraft and shipbuilding procedure motion; their resort to cheating when they saw that they were to lose that motion; and their ruthless overriding of private rights in the Ebbw Vale planning affair. These measures and many others have rightly earned the Leader of the House the soubriquet of "The Great Dictator". I am bound to add that most of the great


dictators of the world have been a good deal more efficient than he is.
Now we have this timetable motion. Why? Because the Government's legislative programme is in an unholy mess. There is no other reason.
The Health Services Bill is one of the measures which The Times called "this overdraft of absurdity" inherited by the Prime Minister. It is absurd. Let me give the facts.
Absurdity No. 1 is that the Bill, on the Government's own admission, will cost up to £20 million a year in lost fees, although others put the cost a good deal higher. Yet today we read in the newspapers that the Secretary of State, with that grim singleness of purpose which has characterised his political career, is preparing to agree to higher prescription charges and higher spectacles and dental fees and is even prepared to look at some other sacred cows—payment for hospital beds, payment for visits to the general practioner. Yet this wretched Bill will cost the Government £20 million or more in lost fees from people who are ready and willing to pay for their treatment.
Absurdity No. 2 is that the Bill is supposed to make more beds available to NHS patients. We have had much argument about this. I should like to quote from a letter which I received this morning from a distinguished consultant at a London specialist hospital, Mr. G. C. Lloyd Roberts. Speaking of pay beds, he said:
At my hospital we are told that six must close to meet the proposed new regulations. The cost of maintaining these beds is £58,000 on 1975–76 figures, but they are of course at present self-supporting. It will not be possible for us to find this money from our budget to enable us to use them for national health patients, for we are not to receive additional funds for this purpose. These beds will consequently have to be closed.
Because of the shortage of money, that will happen all over the country. Private beds will be phased out only to be closed. Services will be reduced and waiting lists will be longer. So the removal of pay beds only makes matters worse.
I come to absurdity No. 3. The hon. Member for Bedwellty referred to
the expedition of business which the people of the country demand.
That is the biggest absurdity of all.
In yesterday's Daily Mail, John Stevenson quoted a National Opinion Polls survey of opinion on the policies embodied in the Bill. I have here a full copy of the survey report. It was based on interviews in April with nearly 2,000 adults in Great Britain, using what is called a systematic probability sample. As in any survey, there is a margin of error, but I suggest that the results of the survey obliterate any possible distortion due to a margin of error. I quote to the House one or two figures.

Mr. Ennals: Before the right hon. Gentleman does that, will he say who paid for the survey?

Mr. Jenkin: I think it was commissioned by the Campaign for Independence in Medicine.

Mr. Ennals: BUPA?

Mr. Jenkin: Yes—it was commissioned by BUPA. If that is intended to cast doubt on the professional integrity of National Opinion Polls, the right hon. Gentleman should be prepared to stand up and say so. I will quote a few figures.
Question: Do you feel that the number of beds for private patients in hospitals should be greatly increased/be increased/remain as they are/be decreased/be removed altogether?
The figures for the first three categories, be greatly increased/be increased/remain as they are were 64 per cent. and for the categories be decreased/removed, 28 per cent. That is more than two to one. Taking Labour voters who were asked the same question—

Mr. Bruce Grocott: We know about this.

Mr. Jenkin: If Labour Members know about this, it is all the more inexcusable that they should be pushing through this motion. For Labour voters, the figure for the first category is 54 per cent. and for the second group 39 per cent.
Taking members of leading trade unions—the Transport and General Workers, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, the General and Municipal Workers, NALGO and NUPE—the figure for the first category is 60 per cent. and for the second category 35 per cent.

Mr. Grocott: In judging public opinion, does the hon. Gentleman think that we should take more note of NOP surveys or General Elections?

Mr. Jenkin: I should be interested to know whether the results in the recent by-elections in Rotherham and Thurrock reflected the results of the poll.
The survey went on to ask several specific questions, and we are entitled to have regard to the evidence of public opinion on this issue.
Do you agree with Barbara Castle's proposed law to close down a thousand private beds in NHS hospitals?
Of all respondents the answer is 25 per cent. "Yes"' and 65 per cent. "No". The answer of Labour supporters was 36 per cent. "Yes", and 52 per cent. "No". Of the major trade unions the answer was 31 per cent. "Yes", and 60 per cent. "No".
Do you think that instead of closing them down, the whole question of private beds should be referred to a Royal Commission?
The answer of all respondents was 55 per cent. "Yes" and 24 per cent. "No". That is a policy which has been consistently advocated by the Conservative Party. The answer of Labour supporters was 48 per cent. "Yes", 29 per cent. "No".
So the general public has no support for the Bill. When the hon. Member for Bedwellty said that the guillotine was justified for pushing through legislation "which the public demanded", he was talking through his hat.

Mr. Kinnock: Mr. Kinnockrose—

Mr. Jenkin: Given those figures, how can the Government have the sheer effrontery—

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find it extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should mention an hon. Member specifically by name, using facts to support his case, and yet forbear to give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The hon. Gentleman knows that there is no suggestion of a point of order in that.

Mr. Jenkin: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman before, but his comments

were so fatuous that I do not want to give way again.
Let us look at the consequences of the timetable motion. There are to be six debating days for the rest of the Committee stage spread over two weeks. That is a major improvement on the four debating days in one week in yesterday's Order Paper. It will be very tight, and we shall have to sit very late if we are to do justice to the Bill. We have to consider the rest of Part II, the whole of Part III and the entire subject of the first 1,000 pay beds.
The real difficulty comes with the Government's obligation to consult. One advantage of having moved at a fairly leisurely pace over the last few weeks is that the Government have been enabled to consult the various organisations before they have come to the clauses. What will happen now when there are consultations on Clause 3 and Schedule 2 which deal with the 1,000 pay beds? On the Government's motion we agreed that the clause and schedule should be taken right at the end. They deal with the key list of 1,000 pay beds to be phased out within six months.
Under the Goodman proposals, the consultations had to come down to the level of the individual hospital. That process started only at the end of May with a letter from the Secretary of State's Department to area administrators. By then the Bill was already in Committee; the consultations are still in progress. I am told that on 2nd July officials of the Department of Health and Social Security told representatives of the BMA that they wanted further meetings to discuss the contents of the schedule, but as yet no dates for those further meetings have been offered to the BMA representatives.
What are we to do? Are we to debate the schedule? We may come to it next week, and the Government may not be ready to present to the Committee their firm proposals. That would make debating exceedingly difficult.
Even then, it would not be wholly impossible if we could be assured of enough time on Report, so that we could consider the Government's amendments on Report. But there will not be enough time on Report, because we are being offered only one day for Report and Third


Reading under the motion. How can we deal with the Bill in one day? We are concerned in Schedule 2 with the complete list of pay beds across the country.
This will be the first opportunity for hon. Members in all parts of the House to voice the anxieties being expressed to them by their area health authorities as a result of the Bill. I would suggest that would justify one day on Report by itself. But this Report stage will be a special one. It will be a very full one. We are now half way through Clause 8 and already we have had 26 tied votes in Committee—I exclude the vote on the sittings motion. That is 26 votes decided by the Chairman's casting vote.
By custom, those amendments may be tabled again and are almost certain to be selected for debate so that the House can come to a firm conclusion, by a majority vote, as to whether those amendments ought to be accepted. If we have had 26 votes so far there cannot be fewer than 50, at a very conservative estimate indeed, by the time we reach the end of the Bill. Even if we debated each of them again for only 15 minutes, allowing 7½ minutes for the mover of the amendment and 7½ minutes for the Government's reply, that alone would absorb more than the whole of the time that the Government are giving for Report in this guillotine motion.
For the Minister to say, as he did in his opening remarks, that he would give adequate time for debate on the Bill is just outrageous. There will be nothing for new clauses, nothing for Government amendments, no time to follow up the Government undertakings. There will be nothing for any new amendments and nothing for Third Reading.
I submit that that would be a travesty of parliamentary debate and it makes absolute nonsense of the Secretary of State's claim that this will be achieved without "unreasonable restriction" of debate. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman is laughing: those were his words. He expects us to take the whole of the Report stage in one day. That would indeed fully justify the charge of
full-hearted contempt for Parliament
of which the Leader of the House accused us of in 1972.
We must have more time on Report. That will not come until the overspill in October or November, so there is time for second thoughts and there is time to give a second day. Yesterday Mr. Speaker said that it was not for him to comment on the propriety of these guillotine motions, that that would be for today's debates. It is an outrage to take five Bills in one day and it will inflict a gaping wound on the flesh of our constitution. The Secretary of State jeers, but let me remind him that much of our constitution is to be found in the Standing Orders of the House. As one noted jurist said:
Freedom and justice are to be found secreted in the interstices of procedure".
There is a wealth of truth in that.
It is an outrage to take the Dock Work Regulation Bill and the Health Services Bill in the same motion, doctors and dockers at the same time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) will move an amendment to separate them at a later stage of the debate.
It is an outrage to guillotine the Health Services Bill and force it through without proper debate when the reasons for the Government's difficulties are not the intransigence of the Opposition. There has been no suggestion of a filibuster. Indeed, the first filibuster we saw came from the Government Back Benchers this morning because they were a man short and refused to face a Division in Committee. The Government did not have enough Members to carry it, so there was a filibuster.
The real reason, therefore, is the bungling mismanagement of the Government. Their policy was announced as long ago as May 1975 and it took nearly 14 months to get the Bill in Committee. A year of blunder and bungle, and to rescue themselves they resort to bluster and bludgeon: all this in respect of a Bill which commands the support of less than 30 per cent. of the electorate and only a minority of even Labour Party supporters in the country.
This guillotine is a product of dictatorial intolerance and self-righteous bigotry which are the hallmarks of modern Socialism and, as such, I call on my hon. and right hon. Friends to throw it out at the end of this debate.

8.9 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: We have had a very interesting admission from the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) in the course of his predictably excited speech. He admitted that the reason for the guillotine was not that the Government had tried, or were trying, to curb the debate, because the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Opposition defeated the sittings motion in Committee. In other words, our crime in his eyes was that we failed to get a majority for insisting that the Committee had more time. He wanted his freedom and his liberty imposed upon him. He was very angry when we failed to succeed in the sittings motion which he was doing his best to defeat. That is a very interesting starting point, because we always have accusations and counter-accusations hurled across the House of Commons whenever a guillotine motion is introduced by any Government.
I have been a Member of the House of Commons for 31 years and I have been present for quite a few guillotine motions—far more from the Conservative side than from the Labour side. But we always have the same sort of complaints and disputes. We therefore have to have an important and major charge brought against the Government before the introduction of the guillotine can be considered a crime. If it is a crime, it is one which is shared universally.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Castle: I am sorry. I do not intend to give way, because other hon. Members wish to speak.
What is the reason for this guillotine? The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford admitted that the reason was not that we were trying to curtail time or suppress discussion. What, then, is the reason he advances for this guillotine which he denounces? It is quite clear. He said that we had no right to impose a guillotine on such a controversial Bill. I think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman is not even in touch with his own party's recent history.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): indicated assent.

Mrs. Castle: I see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment agrees. He knows exactly what I am going to talk about. I am going to talk about a Conservative timetable motion, the one introduced in January 1971 on the Industrial Relations Bill, which was rushed before the House of Commons with maximum speed as one of the first acts of the Conservative Government elected in 1970. I remind the House that the consultation on that Bill was non-existent. None took place, but that did not inhibit the Government of the day from seeking to impose a timetable motion almost at the very beginning of the Committee stage.
How did the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) justify that guillotine? This is what he said:
There are some Bills oil which quite understandably the views of the Government and Opposition are so much opposed that reasonable arrangements cannot work. I contend that this Bill is such a case."—[Official Report; 25th January 1971; Vol. 810, c. 42.]
He justified the guillotine on the Industrial Relations Bill simply on the ground that it was loathed so much by the trade union movement. It was certainly loathed by the trade union movement far more than the Health Services Bill is loathed by the British Medical Association. Simply because it was controversial, the right hon. Gentleman said that his Government's Bill had to be guillotined.
We know that there is some basic common sense in that, because, if feelings run high and the Opposition conceive it as their duty to obstruct by any device they can, however subtly organised, they will do so. I pay tribute to the subtlety of hon. Members in Committee on the Health Services Bill in disguising that they were taking rather more time over their arguments than was necessary for effective democratic debate. This is the reason why we have to guillotine. It is a controversial measure, and the Opposition made it clear to us that they would fight it tooth and nail.
But there the comparison between the Health Services Bill and the Industrial Relations Bill ends abruptly. I remind the House that the Industrial Relations Bill of 1971 was a constitutional measure of major importance, transforming our


industrial relations law. It consisted of 150 clauses and eight schedules. It was four times as large and certainly more than four times as important as the Health Services Bill, which consists of 23 clauses and five schedules.
The Industrial Relations Bill was given by the Conservative Government only 100 hours in Committee. We have already spent 42½ hours in Committee on the Health Services Bill, and under the guillotine motion we shall have 12 more sittings in Committee if we wish to avail ourselves of the opportunity, six of them of two and a half hours' duration each, giving another 15 hours, and six of the sittings open-ended. It would therefore take only six afternoon sittings of four and a half hours' duration each to double the amount of time we have already spent on the Bill, bringing the total amount of time in Committee up to 85 hours for a Bill of 23 clauses and five schedules, compared with the Conservative Government's 100 hours for the revolutionary Industrial Relations Bill of 150 clauses and eight schedules. So the second leg of the right hon. Gentleman's opposition collapses, as always on the guillotines.
It is right to put on record that we can have 85 hours in Committee for a 23-clause Bill. The right hon. Gentleman waxed almost apoplectic at the fact that the Government propose one day for Report and Third Reading. Only four days were allowed for Report and Third Reading of the Industrial Relations Bill, which was four times the size and 20 times the complexity of the Health Services Bill. So can we please have a little less hypocrisy? Let us realise that a guillotine is now necessary.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does not the right hon. Lady recognise that the question of the tied votes and the right to come back on these points on Report makes this a rather exceptional case?

Mrs. Castle: No, I do not accept that. Under the timetable motion of the Conservative Government in 1971, whole sections of the new industrial relations law were never discussed in Committee at all. It is no wonder that we ended up with the worst confrontation in our industrial history, no wonder our predecessors got into such a mess over the closed shop. It is no wonder they have

had to say publicly "If you elect us again, we will never reintroduce the Industrial Relations Act." The failure to discuss that measure adequately was because of the severe timetable they introduced.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that in the Standing Committee so far on the Health Services Bill our examination could not have been more leisurely. Opposition hon. Members have exhausted every detail of every clause that the Chair considered relevant and, therefore, in order. They considered those clauses at three or four times the length that we did on our side of the Committee. Indeed, they so squeezed the juice out of Clause 2 that when it came to the point the Chairman said that there was nothing to discuss on the motion "That the clause stand part of the Bill".
That is the kind of exhaustive examination we have had, and in the process we have dealt with six major clauses and one schedule and we are half-way through the seventh major clause. Ignoring such things as the schedule dealing with enactments repealed, we have left only nine important clauses and one important schedule to discuss. I have demonstrated that we could spend twice as much time again under the timetable motion as we have done already without straining ourselves, without ever sitting later than 8.30 p.m. or, with a dinner break, after 10 o'clock at night.
If all this legislation now comes bunched at the end, that is really not our fault. We would rather spread it out. No more than anyone else do we want to be working all through the day in the last weeks of a hot and tiring Session. That was why we tried to spread things sensibly, but we were turned down by the Opposition, whose only hope politically is to create the "phoney" issue of the Iron Curtain State—and that coming from the party which created the Industrial Relations Bill and guillotined it in so savage and brutal a way. We have our disagreements on the Health Services Bill. Let us argue them out. We have plenty of time to do it, but in the process let us be spared hypocrisy.

8.18 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) repeated two fallacies.


The first is the claim that the Tories in the last half century have introduced more guillotine motions than the Labour Party has done. It is time that that nonsense was put to rest once and for all. In the last 50 years, there have been 34 years of Conservative or Conservative-dominated Governments and only 16 of Labour or Labour-dominated Governments. It is therefore not altogether surprising that there should have been more guillotine motions during the Tory period. The right hon. Lady should accept that it would be odd if the figures were the other way round. Naturally, one would expect that any party which had been in power more than twice as long as the other might well have had more guillotine motions.
The right hon. Lady's second fallacy was her reference to the Industrial Relations Bill. She is perhaps a little sensitive because of the document which gave birth to some of the ideas in that Bill, but she remained silent on that aspect and one can well imagine why she does not want it to be disinterred.
The right hon. Lady did not mention one great difference between 1970 and today. We had a clear majority, whereas the Labour Party does not command a clear and decisive majority. To seek to compare what happens when a party has a clear majority and support for its mandate and what happens when it does not is a considerable fallacy. [Interruption.] shouting from a seated position will do nothing but prolong the debate, which I would welcome. The more debate, the better.
I turn to the question of public opinion. It has been said that the figures quoted from the Opposition Front Bench are not convincing because they come from the National Opinion Poll. I am not sure what causes the slur. If the figures that were quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) had shown precisely the opposite—that there was a clear majority in all fields in favour of the Government's policy—the Secretary of State would have been the first to bound to hte Dispatch Box in their support. From the way in which the right hon. Gentleman is laughing, I can see that he knows that to be so. Let us have less cant.
Irrespective of the NOP figures, it has been claimed that the Government's policies have the clear support of the people. They should look at what happened at Rotherham and Thurrock. Any party that starts off with a majority of 19,000 and then finds it cut down to less than 4,000 should be concerned. That situation would worry many hon. Members on this side. I could imagine my own state of distress if in Torbay my personal majority of up to 18,000 were to fall to 4,000. I can imagine the criticism that I would have from my party leaders for what they and I would regard as a total catastrophe. The explanation of apathy and the usual rigmarole that is spelt out when a majority falls is not the significant point. But it is significant that in a lower poll people who voted Labour last time voted Conservative this time.

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman lays great stress on the value of public opinion polls. But did he notice that the last Gallup Poll showed that the Government would have a lead if there were an election at this time? Has he given thought to that?

Sir F. Bennett: Yes, I have. The right hon. Gentleman has now admitted that if he could pick out a figure which was favourable to his party he would do so. That was my argument, and I cannot be more pleased that he has admitted that. By-elections have not shown that the Government are on the up-and-up in public confidence.
There are three reasons why I have chosen to contribute to the debate. First, I pay tribute to the Leader of the House. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Blackburn had better listen before she laughs so swiftly. I have not been in the House as long as the Leader of the House, but when in 1951 I listened to him thundering from the Benches I was immensely impressed by both his sincerity and his eloquence when he argued against guillotine motions. At that time he really was a parliamentary St. George fighting to slay the executive dragon. It is particularly pathetic that he should now reverse that role and become a rather inept dragon himself. At that time the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence and sincerity appeared to be real, but on Thursday, when he announced what the Government were to do, he claimed that


the Opposition's indignation was synthetic. Will he now have the arrogance to say that the indignation that he showed between 1951 and 1964 was real and valid? Or will he admit that he was not the parliamentary St. George that we thought him but was a synthetic fraud trying to put across one point of view until he gained office, when he would put forward another view? He is in honour bound to confess to the House whether he was being synthetic or real.
The second reason why I want to speak is that, although I have not been a member of the Committees on the Bills under discussion, I have read the reports of each of them. I notice that although phrases like "leisured" have been used, there has been no allegation of deliberate or calculated filibustering. Whether something is leisured is a matter of opinion and degree. Filibustering is a matter of policy, and there is no indication that an act of delay was involved in Committee.
The third reason for my contribution involves a major criticism of the multiguillotine. We have had a succession of speeches which have dealt mainly with the Health Services Bill. We were courteously told that the Dock Work Regulation Bill would be dealt with in the Government's winding-up speech. How can that be other than a parody of parliamentary procedure? We have been told that on one of the two guillotines that we are discussing hon. Members will not be able to say a word in response to the Government's case. We can only listen to the arguments of the Minister responsible for the Bill and not say a word about it ourselves. How can that be said to be an adequate opportunity for Bank Benchers? The only speech we shall have from the Front Bench will be just before we are precluded by the sounding of the Division Bells from making any comment on that speech. If that is fair, or if that is what is called generous time, Parliament is in a sorry state.
I do not know why we could not have had five separate debates, even if it meant sitting really late. To put the Bills together is interference with the normal running of the House, especially when one Bill will not even be mentioned until the concluding stages of the

debate. It is nonsense to suggest that we shall have had an opportunity to put forward our points of view in the absence of any Front Bench comments. Moreover, all the arguments advanced so far for the guillotine on the Health Services Bill have no relevance to the Dock Work Regulation Bill. That is not a matter of speeches, leisurely or otherwise, in Committee. That Bill was reported to the House on 25th May, and none of the arguments about leisurely speeches or failure to keep agreements can be used. The Bill could have been taken at any time without a guillotine motion.
The Government may have their own reasons for not having put that Bill forward. My guess, which defeats their whole claim that they speak for a majority in the country, is that they knew that until two by-elections and something else happened they could not use the majority which they claimed and which events are increasingly proving they do not have, any more than they had a majority at the last General Election for some of their controversial policies.
The Government have a minority in the country, and to all intents and purposes they are a near minority party in the House. The more they resort to these practices, the more the people will say "Let more by-elections come soon, so that we can get rid of even the fragmented majority the Government purport to have".

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: When the guillotine motion was announced, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) made the apt comment that the Opposition had got what they had been seeking ever since the Health Services Bill began its passage through the House. All their tactics and their whole strategy have been to that end, and now they have achieved it. They knew the consequences, because they are as experienced parliamentarians as the rest of us. We have been through the process many times, seeing it from both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett) rested a great deal of his case on the question whether we had a majority. We have had a two-party system for many generations. There is a substantial majority of one major party


over the other. If the hon. Gentleman was trying to suggest that when a party, elected on a certain programme, found itself in difficulty it should then run away from that programme, that is a funny argument. It is strange to suggest that politicians should not be willing or able to carry out their promises.
The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) talked about the Bill as being the property of the previous Secretary of State. This is not the Bill of the previous Secretary of State: it is the Government's Bill, part of the programme they put forward in the Gracious Speech. The Bill redeems a promise we made then.
It must be common knowledge that every Government from time to time have introduced guillotine motions to get their business through. There is a rather dreary repetition in the speeches, because the argument, whether advanced by Labour or Conservative Oppositions, usually rests on a thin base. The basic arguments are few.
I have sat on every National Health Serivce Bill since I entered the House in 1959. I come to this Bill with a background of experience in the NHS and in the legislation that both parties have put through the House. Whereas my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn wished to compare the motion before us with the motion on the Industrial Relations Bill in 1971, I should like to address the House from the point of view of the last major controversial health service legislation, the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973. I served on the Standing Committee which considered that measure. It had six weeks in Committee compared with the nine weeks that we are now entering for the present Bill.
My party, which was then in opposition, strongly opposed the 1973 Act, which had 58 clauses and five schedules. The Committee sittings lasted a total of 53½ hours. After 17 sittings we still have only 42½ hours on the clock for the present Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained, we have had no more time because the Opposition decided that we should have no more. They wanted to spin it out as long as they could. That is an understandable tactic but they should not complain when

requisite action is taken. Hon. Members on both sides of the House understand that an Opposition seeking to prevent a Bill from getting on to the statute book use time. They use it as a means of obstruction.
Looking back over the years my feeling is that the opposition to this Bill is perhaps one of the most irresponsible that I have ever seen. Every Opposition has a right to go as hard as they can for their own point of view and their own principles. But the most effective Opposition are based on a sense of responsibility. The most ineffective Opposition look at every single pinpoint in a Bill and descend to tedious repetition.
This is not, of course, intended in any way to be a criticism of the Chair. But there has been a return toime and time again, ad nauseam, to the same point. Topics raised in Committee have been mentioned over and over again in Second Reading speeches. One wonders how many Second Reading speeches have been devoted to each clause. I estimate that about 30 of the speeches already made in the Standing Committee could be described as Second Reading speeches.
I should like to compare the difference in style between the Labour and Conservative Oppositions. When we were in opposition in 1973, we felt that there were important and basic matters of principle that ought to be argued in Committee. We came to an agreement, through the usual channels, that we would confine our debates to the seven, eight or nine major issues, that there would be a major debate on each, and that at the end of the time the vote would be taken.
That enabled the Government of that time, through the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), to state their case fairly. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) also made a notable contribution from his point of view. My hon. Friends and myself, on the other side, were enabled to bring into juxtaposition our own opposing points of view.
Then, at the end of a two and half hour debate, a conclusion was reached. We lost because of the majority on the Government Benches. Nevertheless, I believe that that is the way in which a responsible Opposition should act when


trying to put their point of view strongly and to uphold their principles on the Committee stage of a Bill.
The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford says that, at a time when resources are at a low ebb, there is the possibility of a loss of about £20 million from private paying patients. But when I look at the Bill that was forced through in 1973, I find that, as a result of the changed administrative structure, a loss in real terms of NHS resources in the region of £70 million is involved—threeand-a-half times as much.
There was a very bureaucratic reorganisation on very schematic lines as a result of the 1973 Act. The administration was increased out of all proportion to the requirements for delivering a National Health Service. In the first full year of the reorganised service, the figure given in Hansard in Vol. 914, column 539, for headquarters administration was £121·6 million, whereas in the year prior to the reorganisation the total was £51·73 million. I have taken this figure from the National Health Service accounts for 1973–74. Conservative Members are complaining of a possible loss of resources of about £20 million, yet, as a result of their action in 1973, which we opposed, the effective loss of resources was about three-and-a-half times that amount.
The Bill is peripheral to the National Health Service. It does not deal with some of the major problems faced by the service. Hon. Members on both sides have some agreement about the kinds of things that ought to engage our attention. But the Opposition, being rather weak on political material, have chosen to make a political issue of a very small amount, less than 4½ per cent. of the National Health Service budget, which is received from the payment for services, including pay beds. That includes prescription charges, health and welfare foods, spectacles and dentures.
Yet they are making this tremendous mountain out of this matter to try to preserve the queue-jumping privilege of a few. The total number of private patients with whom this Bill deals was 113,000 in 1974. The total number of in-patients in the National Health Service in that year was 5½ million. Surgery was mentioned in Committee. The esti-

mated number of operations last year was 2,716,000 for ordinary NHS patients, yet the Opposition are only concerned with the few who pay privately.
We need the guillotine because we need to protect the majority of the people who pay for the National Health Service. It is not a free service. The people pay for it day in and day out. The average amount now paid by a normal average taxpayer is £180 per year. In comparable terms over the past 25 years, a person has paid £4,450, whether or not he has use the service.
This Bill seeks to look after the interests of that section of the community. These are the real paying patients. Its emphasis is on that section of the community so as to create a community service whereby those who are healthy look after those who are ill, where there is fairness and equity in the allocation of limited resources, and where the clinical and medical needs are the predominant factors in the selection of those who receive treatment and those who do not. For that reason this guillotine motion is essential. It must be put on the statute book at the earliest opportunity.
Let us face the real problem. This small but important measure is like a piece of grit in the eye—a person cannot see clearly until it is taken out of the eye. The sooner we get it out, the better and then with this Bill on the statute book we can deal with the rest of the body of the National Health Service.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Smith: The more I listen to the debate the more I realise what a load of old baloney it is. I have taken the trouble to look at past guillotine debates. I suspect that all we do is to rehearse the same arguments every time a Government wish to bring in a guillotine motion. I should like to feel that somebody might in future ensure that guillotine motions are not necessary, irrespective of which party is in power.
The speeches in both guillotine debates have illustrated some of the stupidities of the two-party system. They have confirmed me in my view that this is the longest-running farce in the West End. Today we shall spend nine hours, plus two and a half hours' voting time, on these debates. Everybody knows what the result of the votes will be. Nobody


will be persuaded by the debate. Everybody has decided on which side to vote. We shall spend nine hours arguing. We might as well have taken the vote at 5 p.m. today and reach the same result.
One of the reasons for this situation is the fact that time is the only weapon available to the Opposition. That is certainly the view of some of the leading members of the Government and the Opposition. I have had the privilege of serving on the Select Committee on Procedure for the past 12 months. I have heard leading Members of both sides of the House express their opinion to that Committee that the only weapon available to the Opposition in the House of Commons is the weapon of time. Therefore, as long as we continue to ensure that the only weapon available to the Opposition is that of time, so long will guillotine motions be necessary, and so long will Oppositions continue to delay Bills with the only weapon available to them, the weapon of time.
One could easily demonstrate that today's debate is a repeat of previous debates. I could quote yards of stuff on this topic. Indeed, I have pages of quotations prepared for me by research assistants, who have "nowt" better to do, telling me what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House and other people said in 1961. No doubt in 1983 the then Government, which will probably be Tory and which will be bringing in its own guillotine motions, will be quoting what was said by Labour Members, and the then Labour Opposition will in turn quote what was said by Conservatve Members in this debate in 1976. The great charade goes on.
My revered leader—I am most anxious to get that on record—called for a timetable on Bills. I strongly support that proposal and I hope that whoever has the power to do so, be he the Leader of the House or the Speaker, or whoever else it may be, will ensure that something is done to bring the matter before the appropriate Committee so that at least in future we can arrive at an agreed timetable.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Gentleman makes what appears to be a reasonable suggestion, but if we look at the history of

various Bills we see that the Government make concessions in Committee—indeed, there have been instances of concessions in some of the Bills that are being debated today. Therefore, unless an Opposition persist in Committee for as long as possible, how will they obtain concessions from the Government by way of amendment?

Mr. Smith: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not necessarily agree with him. We have 600 grown men and women in this place and yet we cannot behave in a sensible way in dealing with Bills. The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that unless one can delay a Bill for a long time, the Government will not concede anything.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: That is true—they will not.

Mr. Smith: They will not, and neither would the hon. Gentleman's party if it were in power. This is not a one-sided argument, and surely the merits of an argument are enough to extract a concession from whichever party is in Government. Time should not be used as a weapon. So long as it is used as a weapon, Governments will continue with this charade.
I have great sympathy with the Government in their guillotine motions on education and the tied cottage system, but the one amendment which my party seeks to have discussed will not even be called. It is a stupid system.
Furthermore, the Liberals had no representation on the Health Services Bill. Therefore, in democratic and in House of Commons terms, one party, and probably others, has not had the opportunity to talk on a Bill in Committee. In that way we are denied our rights because amendments on Report are now being guillotined.
I support the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) that two days rather than one should be allocated to the Report stage of the Health Services Bill. That is the plea I make to the Government, that we behave in a responsible way, understanding that we are anxious to do that which is in the best interests of the nation, instead of playing at party games. They have their place. They liven things up and provide a few fireworks. But in the end


we must realise that in Bills which we pass we are making law, as opposed to having academic debates in the habit that half the hon. Members in this House brought with them from their university debating chambers.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Not the half on this side of the House.

Mr. Smith: Almost half, and I am proud of being among the other half. This is a continuation of the university scene, transferring to the House days of debate such as people have in the universities.
It may be good knockabout stuff for livening up a Bill, but when we are making legislation affecting the lives of people, we ought to be responsible and agree a timetable to ensure that matters are thoroughly and properly discussed in all aspects and all stages.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: At an earlier stage of the debate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was mildly critical of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services for appearing to give more attention to the Bill than to the question of the timetable motion, which, as I believe the House now understands, has to be done. To debate the guillotine motion without giving extensive attention to the Bill is as unthinkable as having a Liberal shadow team without the hon. Member for Rochdale. Everybody understands the interdependence of the two.
I want to devote most of my remarks not to the Bills but to the timetable motion and the issues that it poses for us. We are again in our annual legislative traffic jam, which this year is likely to cause more casualties—and I mean in physical terms, not legislative terms—than for many years past. The time has come, as it has been coming for many years, for us to rethink the whole system which, year in and year out, Session in and Session out, Government in and Government out, permits the ludicrous situation to arise that at the back end of July and in August every year there is a crushing together of Bills.
We have to rethink that, because the only real problem about the cause of today's debates is that the Bills arrive

together at one time. We would certainly have heard the same speeches had the debates been more interspersed throughout the year, perhaps through different times of introduction of Bills, different dates of Second Reading or different levels of importance and determination on the part of the Opposition. If they had come at intervals of two or three months, there would not have been the same outcry. We should have heard the same speeches, although there would not have been the publicity and nonsense about an Iron Curtain Parliament and so on. We really have to do something about this.
The Opposition, like all Oppositions, are vigorously protesting against any substantial changes. I hope to show that their objection is based on a parliamentary myth and that the Opposition have only a limited time power. The idea that Opposition Members can press their cause or win advantage or concession by elongating remarks, harrying Ministers and boring the pants off everybody, including themselves, thereby fulfilling the duty of a responsible, thoroughgoing and perceptive Opposition, is absolute nonsense. The Opposition are not undertaking the scrutiny to which the country is entitled in our legislation and to which the people should become accustomed, the scrutiny which most Members of the House would like to be able to give.
Everybody in the House wants to elevate standards constantly—standards of democracy, of work and of scrutiny. There is no great contention about our wanting to do better. But doing better does not necessarily mean talking and sitting longer, volunteering ourselves for tired minds, pushing ourselves into advanced senility by staying here all night talking in circles and pretending that we are doing £6,000 worth of job on behalf of our fellow citizens every year. That is not the case at all. It is time that these myths were removed.
The reality is that the time power—it sounds like a "Dr Who" concept—deriving from time is an archaic concept. The reality now—indeed, the reality since there has been a guillotine in the House—is that the Government can restore time power to themselves simply by getting a majority to vote for a timetable motion.
Another reality that is constantly refreshing our minds is that the average


age of membership of the House has fallen over recent years. It will gradually go up again until we get to the next phase of new Members. But, as the average age of Members has dropped substantially over the years and as the social background and financial resources of Members on both sides of the House have changed over the years, the attitude towards and the ability to enjoy family life have also changed. Indeed, the expectations of family life have changed. Therefore, we have another discipline on ourselves in stealing time power away from Oppositions.
Even on subjects of the most crucial, elementary and ideological difference, hon. Members, if they are honest with themselves, approach the end of July beginning to worry, as they should not have to worry, whether they will see their wives and children and be able to honour their commitments to family holidays. It is no use adopting false virility by saying that we shall slog it out night after night, that we do not care about holidays with our families and that we are prepared to sit through August, September and October. That does not convince anybody in this House. The only reaction from our constituents is "If they are as stupid as that at running their own business, what the hell are they doing trying to run ours?" That is the attitude of people outside. Therefore, we gain nothing for this House or for our honour, dignity, respect and affection by perpetuating this idiotic system.
The fact remains that there is the prospect of Governments arbitrarily using a procedure which, with the inadequacies of scrutiny that we have, will gag Parliaments for authoritarian purposes. I suggest to Opposition Members, including the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), who accused us of using dictatorial methods, that it the Labour Party was bent on a malicious perversion of the rules of this House to secure a gag on Parliament it could not count on my support. Indeed, I should expect right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to take the same line. [An HON. MEMBER: "Humbug."] I am not making a false pretence.
We have heard the figures today. The count of hours has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House and it is acknowledged that there has been

no filibustering. The fact that intelligent human beings, with briefs provided on our side by trade unionists in the National Health Service and on the other side by consultants, should take 40 hours to talk about seven clauses and not make any dramatic changes, secure any notable advances or significantly amend the Bill is absolutely preposterous. It is preposterous that so much time could have been spent in saying so little.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Member is not a member of our Committee. If he were, he would recognise that, inch by inch and foot by foot, we have driven the Government to admit that there are severe disavantages in their policy. They claim now that these disadvantages are outweighed by the advantages, but they did not start with that admission.

Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, for reasons best known to himself, and I, for reasons best known to myself, have been known to make concessions in order to secure a certain unanimity and serenity of opposition in many places in political life, including this House. The right hon. Gentleman should not beat his chest about the enormous advantage he has secured or pretend, as some hon. Members have done, that the time was well spent. I suggest that the time, if we reorganised our procedures in this House properly, could be better spent in doing the job of proper examination. Adversary politics, which the hon. Member for Rochdale abhors so much—the treatment of Back Benchers as if they were some kind of superannuated supporters' club—would take a significant knock if we were really given the opportunity for proper scrutiny.
No one could fairly call me nonpartisan or undogmatic. I do not think that there is any virtue in not having dogma and not sticking to principles in which one believes. I acknowledge the relationship of the Select Committee in the pursuit of knowledge and in the examination of public affairs—public expenditure, the nationalised industries, and science and technology. There is and altogether more productive atmosphere, and more productive work is done in the cause of public interest and democracy, in a Select Committee than in most Standing Committees, where,


except on the odd occasions when one is obsessed by utter fascination, boredom and the attraction of one's constituency business are likely to rivet one's attention away from the precise business in hand. We must take a more sensible attitude to these matters.
A change like that would, in the present circumstances, be less than suitable for the Opposition. We must acknowledge that, with the narrowness of the Government's majority, the temporary incapacity of one or two of my hon. Friends is an occasion for a major Opposition assault. We are in a situation where we have to bring sick men to the House of Commons in order to go through the ludicrous business of having them nodded through the Lobby.
As soon as we start to treat membership of this House as something which begins when the oath is taken and ends when a Member departs—and we have had some exotic reasons for departure lately—and as soon as we realise that it is numbers on the Government side which count and we stop running our business on the relative fitness or sickness of Members of the House, we shall be doing ourselves and the country a considerable service. There is no advantage to anyone in jeopardising the very life of any hon. Member on either side of the House.
The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has seen cause to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for her ability to slog it out. I do not think that it has been a very intelligent approach, given the ludicrous position which exists in our business, to slog it out to try to defeat the Government. With the system that we have, the right hon. Lady should have dispatched a few willing Back Benchers to slash ministerial tyres or organise a strike of stewardesses on the Glasgow shuttle. It is wrong that the absence of a few Labour Members trapped in a traffic jam or pumping up their tyres can threaten the survival of the Government because of the ludicrous attention we need to pay to having Members on the premises.
As in any other profession, we should be entitled to a doctor's note, or a doctor's paper as we call it in South Wales, to show that a Member is incapacitated and should not be made

mobile or dragged sometimes hundreds of miles to attend this House to be nodded through just to show that the Government have a majority. The sooner we do that, the sooner we shall move, struggling and kicking, into the twentieth century. We must bear that in mind when we consider the responsibility of the Opposition parties for what is happening to sick Labour Members, and I ask the Opposition to consider their position in that respect.
This is not a plea from me for the Opposition fully to restore pairing or to come to terms or anything like that. I do not think that Conservative Members have any interest in killing Labour MPs. The fact is, without any exaggeration, that there are men in this Palace today whose lives are threatened because of the need, under our idiotic system, to be here and to vote. That is not how it should be done. If that happened to any of my constituents or the constituents of any Conservative Member, we would be playing hell. But we permit it to happen to our nearest and dearest friends in the ostensible cause of sustaining a majority, and it has nothing to do with that.
The system must change. I would adopt wholesale the suggestion by the hon. Members for Rochdale and for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) for establishing, just as my hon. Friends and Conservative Members did with the Bill to reorganise the National Health Service in 1973, what is important in a Bill, thus ensuring proper scrutiny of the subject. I hope also that there would be a much more substantial change with the adoption of Select Committee powers and procedures for the consideration of legislation, with the provision of research and administrative and assistance facilities to ensure that the job is done properly, instead of its being subject to such superficiality, fatuousness and spuriousness as meanderings round constituencies, false points of order, false interruptions and discussions around the head of a pin, all of which characterise our Committee proceedings on so many occasions. The time power argument never succeeded in beating a Government on any important issue. It works only for the Government.
We all have a vested interest in changing that system so that we remove the possibility of having nights like this at the


end of every year. We are not doing our job properly when we simply exchange slang, swop speeches and make the kind of fools of ourselves which we know we are not but which the country frequently takes us for.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has made the strongest argument I have yet heard for keeping this place a legislative assembly and not turning it into part of the Executive, as he wishes.
In the past 25 years there have been 19 guillotines introduced by Conservatime Governments and 10 brought in by Labour Governments. However, we must take into account that the Conservatives were in office for 17 of those years and the Labour Governments for only eight. The Conservatives had more than twice as long in office and introduced slightly less than twice as many guillotines. They introduced an average of one and one-tenth guillotines per year against the Labour Party's one and a quarter. Could we therefore kindly stop this silly argument that Conservatives guillotine more Bills than Labour Governments.
All governments need guillotines. It is silly and dishonest to pretend that they do not. However, it is equally silly and dishonest not to admit that it is the right and duty of an Opposition to prevent any Government from getting a guillotine motion easily.
If a Government can get this power without losing time or sleep and without making life difficult for their supporters, that power is bound to be abused. A respected member of the Labour Party taught me that in a speech made against a Conservative guillotine motion. Still less must any Government get a cluster of guillotines easily. These motions are evidence of mismanagement of the Government's programme and a certain amount of disagreement on policies among hon. Members opposite.
The Leader of the House said that guilloines were needed for a small minority of Bills, but the fact that five have come bunched together this summer is evidence that the Government have tried to pass too much legislation. They are trying to push through the House—which accurately reflects

their lack of overall support in the country—legislation for which there is not reasonable time for discussion and debate. It is no good trying to justify this by the doctrine of the mandate. No Government with only 39 per cent. of the total poll can claim a mandate for everything in their manifesto.
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) said that it was the duty of the Government to carry out their programme, but he was denying the whole concept of parliamentary government and the whole basis of the freedom of Parliament. He was saying that a Government must at all costs carry out the programme on which they have embarked, regardless of the will of Parliament. I think that the hon. Member was wrong. A Government should be prepared to alter their programme so that they carry Parliament with them at all stages and can obtain a majority—not necessarily the same majority—on every piece of legislation.
The Leader of the House referred to the exceptionally strong feelings on these Bills. But who does feel so strongly about these Bills? Is it the general public, the trade unions, or a few of the more determined and extreme Soclialists, a minority of a minority?
The argument has been used that in some way a Labour Government are especially entitled to get their legislation through quickly because it represents the liberties of the great mass of the people. That is arrogant nonsense, and the Government Front Bench knows it. It may be true to say that a Labour Government have a special need for guillotines to win the consent not of the House but of powerful individuals who control the block votes at Labour Party conferences.
A Labour Government have the same right as any other Government, neither more or less, to get through controversial legislation. But as the Leader of the House said, they must carry the consent of Parliament with them at all stages.
The Secretary of State said that the Bill must go through because it has had a Second Reading. He implied that as far as possible it must go through unaltered in principle. I find that an odd doctrine. Again, it denies the right of Parliament to make alterations.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Stanley Orme): What about the Industrial Relations Act?

Mr. MacMillan: I am coming to that.
According to the account of the Secretary of State, he attempted to control the proceedings in Committee. Only minor amendments from outside representatives, such as doctors, were considered. More important, political amendments from within the Committee were not considered. He referred to the need to get through this legislation because of the feelings of National Health Service workers.
The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) referred to the Industrial Relations Act, and it has just been mentioned by the Minister of State. It ill becomes anyone to blame the Tory Party for failing to discuss that Act. Night after night and hour after hour we trooped through the Division Lobbies because the Labour Opposition were not willing to talk about it in Committee of the whole House. After the guillotine they insisted on using the time that was available for debate to demonstrate their feelings by voting for 13 hours on end. If ever there was obstruction, that was it.

Mr. Orme: Mr. Ormerose—

Mr. Macmillan: The purpose of the series of Bills we are discussing, to which the guillotine will apply, is to appease those who purport to represent workers in the industries concerned, not to serve the interests of the nation or the people as a whole. That is what is wrong with them. That is the dilemma that the Government face.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) said that this was typical Socialist arrogance, but it is not. It is syndicalism, not Socialism. If the Government ignore the fact that they have a minority of the votes, if they continue to ignore public opinion and if they try to use their bare majority to overcome the difficulties that they are having in Committee, thereby compressing debates on Report, whether they mean to or not, they will damage the whole fabric of Parliament and damage our credibility as a House.
It is the Leader of the House who is teaching the electorate, by his example,

to treat the House with contempt. It may seem a small thing, but freedom is lost in very small steps. I believe that the liberty of the House is being curtailed by one who sought to defend it in the past. I find it a very sad occasion.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) appeared to miss the major points that have been raised in the debate. The debate has not been confined to the timetable motion but has gone beyond into how the place is run, how decisions are made and generally how the procedures of the House work. Recent happenings in the House have highlighted the necessity of deciding whether the House should continue to operate along the present lines, or whether it should grasp the nettle and realise that the activities of Parliament are tremendously important to the people of the country, many of whom would not believe it if they were told how the House operates under the guise of parliamentary procedure.
Some of the rules governing the House are like the rules which governed boxing before the Marquess of Queensberry's rules. Whoever is standing on his feet at the end can be said to be the winner. That is the way in which an advanced industrial nation conducts its affairs.
The Opposition are entitled to use the tactics and the rules that the House affords them. No one argues against that. The Opposition are entitled under the rules to use tactics to delay Government legislation. At the same time, the Government are entitled to use the tactics afforded by the rules to introduce timetable motions to expedite their business. Having regard to the state of the economy and the necessity for this legislation, the Government are correct in their procedure.
Whether the Dockwork Regulation Bill will be a panacea for all dockland's problems is arguable, but there is no doubt that we require this legislation it there is to be a dock industry in the future. Whether the Bill is perfect in form and intention is not a matter for argument today. The Government, who laid before the electorate a manifesto containing certain policies, are entitled to use the rules and tactics of the House to


see that those policies are put into effect. I go so far as to say that the Government have a responsibility to use those tactics.
As a comparatively new Member of Parliament my view is that it is time the House made a proper assesssment of the way it conducts its business. Last week many hon. Members came to the House on Monday morning and saw their beds for the first time at 4 o'clock on Wednesday morning. How can we expect them to act efficiently after spending so long in the House, either in the Chamber or waiting to vote? It cannot be justified. It must affect the efficiency of Members of Parliament. Members of Parliament who leave here at 6.45 a.m. have to go to their office to deal with constituency mail, attend Standing Committees and do all the other tasks that a Member of Parliament is expected to do if he is to be effective. Anyone who believes that a Member of Parliament can be effective in conditions of that kind must think again.
The most important aspect of the debate is not the timetable motion in isolation, but whether we have reached the point when the House must examine its procedures to see whether they can be changed and be made more relevant to 1976 and to the efficient conduct of the affairs of the nation. Nowhere else, not even in the most primitive society, would we see the sort of ritual which goes on in this place when sick men are being nodded through the Lobby. It would not even happen in a small African village when the village heads were making their decisions. Yet, in this place, we still carry on this primitive ritual.
I believe that the observations by hon. Members today ought to reach the ear of the Government Front Bench. We ought to have an opportunity to debate the whole procedures of this House to ascertain whether it can be run on more effective and civilised lines and on lines relevant to the wishes of the people outside this place.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Leon Brittan: I do not say that there is no room for improving the procedures of this House and I do not say that an improvement of those procedures might not include a reconsideration of the cir-

cumstances and manner in which guillotine motions are put forward. What I do say is that any feeling of discontent on that subject should not be an excuse for a massive abuse of the present situation such as the Government are proposing today. If there is to be any change in our procedures, it should be brought about as a result of proper consideration and not as a panic response to the Government's inadequacy in getting their Bills through.
The inadequacy of the Government's present proposals, and the disgracefulness of the present manner of trying to get their legislation through the House, is illustrated by the utterly fantastic and inescapable fact that we should now have been debating this motion for nearly two hours and considering two Bills and yet we have not heard a single word of argument in favour of guillotining the Dock Work Regulation Bill. The most that we have heard has been a not very enthusiastic reference to the Bill by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden). Reference to the Bill by him were a good deal more enthusiastic when the Committee stage began. It is a measure of the importance of discussing the Bill fully that his enthusiasm has so toned down during the course of our proceedings.
It is disgraceful that we are to hear a justification of the guillotine from the Secretary of State at the winding-up stage of the debate and not before. He obviously does not expect that there is the slightest prospect of persuading the Conservative Opposition in ordinary debate of the merits of the guillotine, or he would give us an earlier chance to hear the argument.
The importance of the Bill is undeniable. It was presented, as the hon. Member for Garston hinted, as a panacea to the problems of dockland. It was quite strongly, if passionately, opposed by Conservative Members who believed that the Bill was a threat to jobs held by persons not dock workers at present. It is a sure recipe for adding to costs and inefficiency in a whole batch of industries.
When we have a situation in which the Port of London Authority is going to be losing £6 million to £7 million a


year, largely because it is employing 1,250 registered dock workers at an average of £57 a week to do absolutely nothing, it reinforces the argument that the Bill involves adding that particularly infectious and virulent disease to a whole host of ports which have hitherto, mercifully, escaped from it.
There is no argument for suggesting that there has been dilatoriness on the part of the Conservative Opposition in this respect. The issues raised are complex and technical. They involve consideration of the history of an industry in which industrial dispute has been endemic, in which technological change has been rampant and in which the interests of producers and consumers have to be balanced and considered.
There is a whole host of associated matters to be looked at, such as the problems of the small ports, which are united in opposing the extension of the Dock Labour Scheme to them, of the cold storage industry, of definitions and the technical questions relating to Schedule 3. For example, what meaning should be given to the term "cargo"? There is also consideration of the safety factors in the case of the chemicals industry.
All these are not matters which have been the subject of filibustering, and the Secretary of State never suggested in Committee that they had been. They are all crucial for thousands of working people and were considered on their merits. When we put our amendments forward, what was the response? We were no filibustering Opposition. On four occasions there were tied votes in a Committee where the Government had a majority. On a very conservative estimate, there were 17 undertakings or assurances and at least one major change in the Bill as a result of our arguments.
The Government claimed that the Bill would give dockers new jobs. We argued that if that was so, it must be at the expense of the people doing those jobs now. After that argument, the Government responded, at a late stage, by putting forward amendments to ensure, they said, that those at present employed in such jobs would have the right to go on the register as dock workers even though they were not on it at the moment. There-

fore, the Government said, no jobs would be at risk.
If that is so, the whole point of the Bill disappears, because if no jobs are at risk, there are no job opportunities for the dockers elsewhere in industry, and the squalid deal between the Leader of the House and Mr. Jack Jones, on which the Bill is based, is exposed as a hollow sham. The Government cannot have it both ways. The amendment put forward by the Secretary of State in this respect on his own estimate was crucial and was brought about by pressure from us.
That has been the work of the Standing Committee—detailed, complicated, controversial and crucial—and there has been no filibustering and no attempt to suggest that there has been. Indeed, so far from there being filibustering, there was in the end, admittedly after certain squalls on the way, an agreed timetable. There were no all-night sittings, although we sat in the evenings and could have sat all night if it had been thought necessary.
But none of that occurred. We never sat later than about 7.15 p.m. as a result of that agreed timetable. The Committee rose before the Whitsun Recess. That was in return for an undertaking from the Government that there would be adequate time on Report for consideration of the many matters raised in Committee, complex, technical and controversial.
But now the Government have the effrontery to say that, for a complicated, technical and controversial matter like this, on which they have had to give so many undertakings and to surrender a major point, they will give one day on Report. If that is not a parliamentary outrage, I do not know what is. All the talk by Labour Members about sick men being wheeled through and all their sentimental slobber does not alter the fact that it is the Government who are doing this in order to pass a Bill which no one wants and which will not do what they said it would do.
There is only one true reason for the guillotine motion—to race the Bill through so that its disreputable origins, history and purpose are concealed. It is a squalid little Bill which will not even achieve its desired effect. It ought not to occupy the House's time at all,


but if it is to do so, it should occupy it a great deal more than one day on Report.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I shall not attempt to argue the merits of the Bills that are the subject of the timetable motion and on which we shall shortly vote. I shall deal with the circumstances in which a guillotine may arise and the justification for it. I shall do that from a particular background, having arrived in the House with, as I thought, a good theoretical knowledge of its procedures.
Before I came to the House I thought that hon. Members worked under pretty ludicrous conditions and in many respects on the basis of pretty absurd rules. That was a purely theoretical opinion. Since then I have observed the system in practice and I have come to a judgment. I am now absolutely convinced that we operate this place on the basis of ludicrous rules that make us a laughing stock to people outside and to those who take the trouble to observe our procedures.
I have now seen the interminable Committee debates. I used to take visiting parties into Committees to show them how Parliament works, but after a while I was too embarrassed to do that and, in any case, unless my visitors had adequate medicinal support, they were unable to stay awake.
I am told that the system is crucial to democracy; that we cannot have a democratic system without it. I am told that it is part of the delicate balance between Government and Opposition that rests on time. No one has explained why Second Reading debates have a fixed time—that, presumably, is a kind of guillotine—while Committee and Report stages can go on interminably. That system has always been described as the only proper way in which the Government can conduct their affairs.
We must concede that whatever debate takes place there must be a winner and a loser at the end of the debate. On most issues one cannot half win and half lose. One cannot half abolish tied cottages, half get rid of pay beds, half join the Common Market, or half execute someone. All our procedures are designed to find a winner without a physical fight

and with only a verbal fight. It is unpalatable but our parliamentary system therefore rightly rests on the assumption that the winner takes all.
I have not yet had the advantage of being in opposition and I do not intend to be in that position. "Winner takes all" is an ugly phrase, but that is how the system works. If a party wins a General Election, it is the winner who takes all until the people are again consulted within five years.
There are no consolation prizes in my constituency. The candidate who comes second to me has no parliamentary rights. My constituency is one of the most marginal in Britain and the Opposition will be upset to know that I am in perfect health. But the winner in my constituency, as in others, takes all. The same applies when candidates arrive here. The party that is capable of commanding a majority wins the votes and takes all. No one suggests that because the Conservative Party won 35 per cent. of the votes it should have 35 per cent. of Cabinet posts. We operate on the basis of winners and losers, and that is a good system. I accept it and the Opposition accept it when they are the winners.
The only conceivable case for objecting to the Government's ensuring that their policy is seen through on these and the other measures that we are discussing is that somehow the present Parliament is fundamentally different and the present Government's mandate is fundamentally different from that of any other. Let us stick to discussing post-war Governments. The argument is usually that in October 1974 the Labour Party received only 39·2 per cent. of the votes at the General Election and therefore has no mandate to carry through its policies.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It certainly does not.

Mr. Grocott: Let us examine the records of some Governments since the war, beginning with the Conservative Government elected in 1951. They had a big percentage of the votes cast—48 per cent.—but it was lower than the Labour Party's. In 1955 the Conservatives received 49·87 per cent. in 1959 they received 49·4 per cent.; and in 1970 they received 46·4 per cent. On none of those occasions could the Government


claim that they had a majority of the electorate behind them.
What magic enables the Tories to say that 39·2 per cent. is not a mandate but 46·4 per cent. is? They have repeated that proposition frequently. Let us have the figures. Let us know the rules of the parliamentary game. If after the next General Election the Conservatives are the majority party in Parliament, but on the basis of 40 per cent. of the vote, do they have a mandate? Have they a mandate if they have 43 per cent.? Let us hear exactly what the magic figure is. It is obviously not 50 per cent.
The Opposition's argument is spurious. All Conservative Members know that they have never conceded that argument when in Government, and I am sure that whoever sums up this debate will give no undertaking that if his party wins the next election on a low percentage of the vote, it will drop every controversial measure. In any case, what is a controversial measure? Is it something judged by the Opposition to be controversial? In the present Parliament is a controversial measure one to which the Tories object? If so, are we supposed to throw it out of our programme? On what basis do the Opposition speak? At the last election they received 35·8 per cent. of the votes.

Mr. David Model: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that we were discussing the Health Services Bill and the Dock Work Regulation Bill. So far we have had one speech on the Dock Work Regulation Bill. Time is getting on. What has 40 per cent. of the population's votes to do with this?

Mr. Grocoft: I am not sure whether that was a point of order or an intervention. 'We are considering whether the Government are entitled to see that they carry out what they are mandated to do. That is what a guillotine motion is all about.' Everything I have said so far is entirely relevant to that. If the hon. Gentleman reads it in Hansard tomorrow, he will find it an elucidating lecture on the British constitution, from which he will benefit.
The Opposition tell us that we should throw out controversial measures because they speak for the people, yet they

received 35·8 per cent. of the vote, far and away the lowest percentage vote any official Opposition in Britain have received since the war. Only one in three of the electorate backed them only a few months after they had been in office.
What was the next lowest Opposition percentage? The next lowest was in 1945, when again the Tory Government received the support of 39·8 per cent. of the electorate. Are the Conservaives saying that, on the basis of having one in three of the electorate voting for them, they can sanction any of our controversial legislation? Will they give an undertaking—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: At any time.

Mr. Grocott: If the hon. Lady is saying "Yes", will she—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Sedentary observations do no credit to the House.

Mr. Grocott: After some future General Election, if the Labour Party were to get the derisory vote that the Tories received at the last election, would the hon. Lady say that we would therefore have the right to stop anything controversial that the Tory Government put forward? That is a ludicrous constitutional position to take, and the hon. Lady knows it perfectly well.
The argument about mandate is even more relevant when we consider the Opposition's right to speak. They represent one in three of the electorate. It is a derisory vote, and in absolute terms it is even worse than that. The Tories received 10½ million votes, which is far and away the fewest votes that a major party has achieved since the war. The only exception is the Tory vote in 1945, which was 9½ million, but on an electorate much smaller than we have now.
Let us have none of this nonsense about mandates and the Conservatives' right to object to all our proposals on the basis of their one in three derisory vote. In this country, whether we like it or not, the winner takes all in politics.
If Conservative Members want a system of proportional representation, let them stand up and say so. Let them make it plain that that is their objective. They do not stand for that in public as a party at the moment. Let us accept that the


democratic will in this country, and the instrument of it, is the ability to command a majority of votes in a House of Commons debate. That is what we shall do at the end of this debate, and we shall then see an end to the cant and humbug that we have heard from the Opposition.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: The fact that the winner takes all in this country means that it is fundamental and essential that those who are not winners have the right to stand up for the rest of the people in the country, and to speak out and to use the parliamentary procedure to its utmost. In addition to this, the winners have to obey the parliamentary procedures. Without those two safeguards in our society we would have one society only and one Government, which is not a democracy at all. That is quite clearly what the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott), as a result of his long studies of our democratic system, believes should happen.
The appalling thing about the debate is that there have been two important Bills to be discussed, quite different from each other, and only one of which has had proper discussion. Only one has been mentioned, other than very briefly, by the Secretary of State, who opened the debate. It is a travesty that we should be forced in three hours, on a guillotine motion, to speak about two major Bills which are so different from each other.
The Secretary of State made a poor speech. He gave his reasons for bringing in a guillotine for the Health Services Bill. He introduced the guillotine to remedy the incompetence and lack of determination by the Government in trying to pass the Bill. Because of that incompetence and lack of determination, the Bill was not laid before the House until five months after the Queen's Speech. After the Second Reading, the Government could not make up their minds what should be the constitution of the Committee upstairs. That wasted another week or 10 days. When the Bill went before the Committee, the Government incompetently failed to put down a proper sittings motion at the beginning of the proceedings. If they had put

down such a motion saying that the Committee should sit three times a week, they could have carried the Bill. If there had been a tie, the Chairman would have given his casting vote in favour of the Government.

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman must know that the original sittings motion was moved after consultation with his right hon. Friend who led for the Conservative Party. That was part of an agreement.

Mr. Boscawen: That may be so. However, the Government would have had to accept that they would not achieve a sittings motion later because they did not have a majority in the Committee. If they had wanted, they could have held three sittings a week from the beginning if they had included that in the sittings motion.
The Health Services Bill is important as it deals with the standards of health care for private and public patients. It is not concerned with abolishing pay beds and queue-jumping. It is about standards of health care. The Bill does nothing to improve the standards of health care.
The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is quoted as saying that the overriding purpose of the Bill was to help build a cohesive society in Britain. That is rich. What has the right hon. Lady done to build a cohesive society in the National Health Service over the past 18 months or two years? The health service has never been in more disarray. There has never been more trouble in the National Health Service. We have never before had a situation where each part of the health service has been on strike, as has happened over the past 18 months.
The Bill may increase the likelihood of more patients wanting private care and may therefore build two standards into our Health Service. The Opposition tried in Committee to restore confidence in the health service, which has diminished over the past few months. There is a total lack of confidence among the medical profession, the nurses and ancillary workers in a future Health Service. The Opposition argued at length to restore the confidence of the medical profession and to make this a better and, much as we dislike it, a more workable Bill. We


want to ensure that it works as far as is practicable.
What is required is the maximum amount of flexibility and the minimum amount of legislation for the National Health Service. It needs the maximum amount of good will and the minimum amount of instruction from above. What is needed is not hard and fast rules about pay beds or queue jumping, but a little leadership from the top—leadership which we have certainly been lacking in the Health Service.
We have before us an industrial relations problem. In earlier days we were told so often by Labour Members that industrial relations started with good management. Certainly the one thing that we have lacked in the National Health Service in the past two or three years is good management from the top, and particularly from the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. James Prior: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, leave out from 'B. DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL' to end of paragraph 3(2).
The motion makes history because it guillotines two Bills in one motion. This is the first time that this has been done under Standing Order No. 44. It may be that this can be done under the rules, but tonight's debate has brought out only too clearly that this is a totally unsatisfactory way for the House of Commons to conduct its business. It cannot possibly be right that the debate on a guillotine motion on two major Bills was opened by a Minister of the Crown who talked entirely about one of the Bills under discussion and is to be wound up by another Minister who will talk entirely about another Bill.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) said in an extremely powerful speech, there are times when the Government need to implement a guillotine. As a former Leader of the House, I once had to introduce a guillotine on a counter-inflation measure before it went to Committee. That measure was needed urgently by the Government and we took the guillotine motion straight away. On that occasion, the synthetic wrath of the

then Opposition was so muted that there were only three Back Bench speeches, and certainly the debate on the motion did not last for three hours. However, I cannot remember a guillotine that has aroused as much real anger as have these motions today.
That anger relates not so much to the imposition of a timetable, since we all accept that on occasions that has to happen, as to the manner in which it has been done. There has not even been separate discussion of each Bill. Why should we not have had a discussion lasting three hours on each Bill? It would have cost the Government another six hours of their time. Surely, when we see the way in which this debate has been conducted we cannot pretend that the present situation is satisfactory.
The second cause of our anger is the incompetence of the Government in getting into this position. They have tried to put too much legislation through the House. The right place for a guillotine to be applied is in the Legislation Committee of the Cabinet. If that were to happen, the House would not be bombarded with the legislation that we have seen recently. No major Bill should be introduced into the House after the end of February and that should be made clear. That is what should happen if the Government are to handle their legislative programme in a proper manner.
A further cause for anger on the part of the Opposition is the procedure as to the allocation of time. To suggest only one day for discussion of the Dock Work Regulation Bill is an insult to hon. Members who undertook so much work in Committee and also to those outside the House who have taken such a deep interest in the Bill. The Government have shown no inkling of understanding the effect of this legislation on people outside the House.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered
That, at this day's Sitting, Government Business may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Bates.]

HEALTH SERVICES BILL AND DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Question again proposed.

Mr. Prior: Lastly on this point, there is the real anger of the Opposition resulting from what happened in the debate just before Whitsun. The Opposition rightly felt angry at the conduct of the Government. An Opposition then resort to all the tactics they can to prevent Government business going through. Labour Members then turn round and say that we are approaching the recess, we all need to get away, the Government must have their business and we must stop all this talk that goes on in this place and conduct ourselves in a more businesslike manner. But it is the Government who have brought this state of affairs upon themelves.
What confidence can people outside have in our democratic process if we take this cavalier attitude towards legislation and are prepared to go away? Very well, let us go away, but is this legislation so vital to the running of the country that it cannot wait for us to come back in September, October or whenever it may be? I simply do not believe that people outside understand that either we have to pack up in the first week in August and, therefore, legislation has to be through this House by then or we cannot either continue or come back to it later. It really is no excuse to say that this legislation has to be through by the beginning of August.
On the question of the Dock Work Regulation Bill, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to admit that we have always tried to make agreements, on all the Bills in which we have participated when in Opposition, with whoever has been Leader of the House. We have always sought to make an agreement snaring out time reasonably so that there could be proper discussion. That is precisely and exactly what happened in this instance. The right hon. Gentleman will see from the Official Report of the Committee proceedings that we co-operated fully. Does he really think that in future we can afford to co-operate on a Committee stage if all that is then to happen is that we are to be given one day on a guillotined Report stage? He is

destroying any hope of reasonable timetable agreements which, I believe, are largely in the interests of hon. Members, of the House and of people outside.
It is the acrimony and distrust which the new Leader of the House has brought into the conduct of our affairs which has done so much to cause the difficulties we are now in. This could be part of a process. Tonight we have heard from Labour Members that the House is brought into disrepute by the arguments that are going on. What is the next step? There must be changes in the way the House conducts its business. There is an undermining of Parliament as an institution. That is an extremely dangerous way to go about things. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not do Parliament any good by getting the legislative programme into a muddle and then blaming the system, because that does not help Parliament at all.
What has happened since the right hon. Gentleman has been Leader of the House? When we barracked him a bit on a winding-up speech, he accused the Opposition of being semi-drunk. When Mr. Speaker gave a ruling that did not suit him, the right hon. Gentleman changed the ruling. When he was likely to be beaten in a Division, he cheated with the vote. Now he has guillotined five Bills in one day and has killed proper debate.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The right hon. Gentleman must not make such accusations about my having cheated on a vote. If he is going to make such accusations, he should produce the evidence. There is not a scrap of evidence to support what he says.

Mr. Prior: I do not think I need produce any evidence to any Member in this Parliament to show that on that night there was a cheating of the vote. The right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House and responsible for the management of Government affairs, must take the major responsibility for what happened. It is also inconceivable that he did not know about it anyhow.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman has no grounds for making any such charge. If he is to make any such charge, he should produce evidence to support it. I proposed that there should be an investigation into the matter, as the Leader


of the Opposition knows full well. I said that there should be an investigation by representatives from both sides of the House. In the face of that fact, for the right hon. Gentleman to continue to make that accusation without a scrap of evidence is a scandalous misuse of the rights of this House.

Mr. Prior: The right hon. Gentleman has a short memory. On the following morning he came to the House and tried to brush the whole thing off as if nothing had happened. There is nothing in what I have said which gives me cause to withdraw anything, and I have no intention of doing so.
I turn now to what the right hon. Gentleman said about this guillotine motion. He said that we had had long Committee stages, so we did not need such long Report stages. But he must know from his experience that the longer the Committee stage, in all probability the more need there will be for a long Report stage because of the facts which will have come out in Committee.
For example, in Committee on the Dock Work Regulation Bill Ministers gave 60 assurances to look at various points again. There are 255 amendments down for Report, of which 41 are Government amendments and six are starred amendments which have been put down since the guillotine was announced. We need, and we know that there should be, at least eight major debates on Report. We know that 40 hon. Members on the Opposition side who were not members of the Committee represent small ports which can be affected by the Bill. How on earth will those hon. Members—whether they come from Montrose, Harwich, Portsmouth, Milford Haven, Shoreham or other places—be able to make a case for their constituents in the course of a single day on Report? It is grossly unfair that this Bill should have only one day on Report.

Mr. John Page: The Bill concerns not only Members who represent constituencies with ports but others like the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), who should have been here to defend his constituency, which is also attacked by the Bill.

Mr. Prior: Looking at the cargo-handling zone—the five-mile corridor—

one realises that many hon. Members on both sides of the House must be extremely uneasy about the effects of the Bill. No Bill this Session has caused more unease amongst Labour Members than the Dock Work Regulation Bill. They are still squabbling about it. Only yesterday I saw a report which pointed out that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) wanted to take another deputation to see the Minister on the subject.
The Bill flies in the face of all modern industrial relations practice. It is likely to put up costs and prices. It will cause a lack of investment in areas round the ports. It is highly unpopular with many unions. In addition, it will cause unemployment.
Perhaps the last commentary that one should make on the whole guillotine debate on the Dock Work Regulation Bill in particular is that, on a day when unemployment figures have reached a post-war high, we are busy guillotining and pushing through the House three out of five Bills which will certainly add to the numbers of unemployed. The Dock Work Regulation Bill, the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill and the Rent (Agriculture) Bill will all add to unemployment. They will stop investment, stop production on the farms, stop investment in the cargo-handling zone and add to our problems. They will put up prices at the same time.
There is absolutely no case whatever for the guillotine in these circumstances. There is no case for these Bills. The Dock Work Regulation Bill should be dropped. One of the best measures that the Government could take to restore shattered confidence in the pound abroad would be to drop the Bill out of their programme altogether.
We have a duty to press these things as hard as we can, and we feel real anger at the way the Government have behaved. If anyone tries to say that we are disrupting the work of the House of Commons, he should be told that the blame lies fairly and squarely with the management of Government business and the Government's behaviour in the last six weeks. This is what has led to the difficulties we now face.

10.12 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I should like to agree with what the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said about this debate being historic. I fear that I can agree with very little else that he said.
Our debate has included two very interesting and persuasively argued appeals for reform of the procedure of the House in order to obviate the need for guillotines. I refer, of course, to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). I believe that it would be worth trying to create a mechanism or procedure to determine a voluntary timetable, and I believe that that would obviate the need for certain guillotine motions.
But my experience of industrial relations and of the House leads me to believe that while we may determine a mechanism or a procedure that might help, it would not obviate totally our situation tonight. In the last analysis, the Opposition must retain the right to strike at the Government, and also in the last analysis the Government must retain the right to use whatever majority they can command to obtain their legislation. However, I believe that the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty and the hon. Member for Rochdale are interesting and would stand study by other hon. Members.
The Government believe that it is now urgent for the House to reach conclusions about the provisions of the Dock Work Regulation Bill. There has already been full and ample opportunity for the House as a whole to express its views on the underlying principles of this Bill. My predecessor as Secretary of State, the present Leader of the House, made a statement to the House on 25th July 1974 and announced the Government's intention to ensure that the coverage of statutory control of employment of dock work was appropriate to modern conditions and to start consultations on ways of achieving that end. That was nearly two years ago. In March 1975 we issued a consultative document "Dock Work" which laid down all the main proposals contained in the Bill. Hon. Members have therefore had an opportunity for a long time to examine them.
On 14th April last year the House first debated the dock work proposals contained in the consultative document and it negatived by 282 votes to 257 an Opposition motion rejecting the consultative document. That was the first occasion on which the House determined in favour of the Government's proposition as now contained in the Bill.
In the Queen's Speech this Session we announced that a Bill would be introduced to ensure comprehensive employment safeguards for dock workers. On that occasion the Liberals tabled an amendment opposing an extension of the scheme. After a full debate, the House rejected the amendment by 294 votes to 288. No one can therefore contend that the House was not fully aware, of the proposals even before the Bill was given a Second Reading, and no one can say that the House has not had an opportunity to determine whether it accepts the principles underlying the Bill in its main proposition.
In those two debates before Second Reading, as now, we believed that it was clearly necessary to take legislative action to extend the dock work scheme and to make changes necessary in dockland to bring the docks into conformity with modern technology and industrial requirements. We emphasised then the great contribution this legislation could make to bringing about industrial peace in our docks.
We emphasised equally strongly how failure to bring the legislation up to date could bring about the risks of industrial action similar to the risks which existed between 1970 and 1974 when the Conservative Government pigeonholed positive proposals for dealing with dock work and brought about two of the three national dock strikes in the country's history.

Sir David Renton: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said about industrial peace, does he accept from me that representative trade unionists in my constituency have told me that the Bill will lead to industrial strife so far as they are concerned?

Mr. Booth: The history of docks legislation is one of considerable controversy, but the present dock work regulation scheme existed at the time of the last two national dock strikes, and I am


therefore certain that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with his customary fairness, will not contend that the existing scheme will resolve the current industrial problems of dockland.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the Secretary of State tell us of one single port in the country with industrial relations anything like as good as those at Felixstowe?

Mr. Booth: There are a whole number of docks in this country which have a very good record. In Standing Committee we examined the records of scheme and non-scheme ports throughout the country. Let me apply myself directly to the subject of Felixstowe. I went there and I spoke to every shop steward in the docks, and without exception they told me that they wanted Felixstowe brought within the scheme.
It is the view not only of the Government or the TUC's transport committee that the legislation is urgently needed. The ACAS panel of inqury into last year's unofficial action in and around the Port of London said:
In conclusion, we would stress once again that the present problems are a renewal of long-standing friction which have been subject to investigation on several occasions.
The first recommendation of the report was:
That the Government, having brought forward its proposals relating to registered dock work, should make every effort to give these preposals legal effect within the minimum period possible".
We had to balance the urgent need for the legislation against the requirement of the House properly to scruitinise a measure which we knew would be controversial.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman's reference to the ACAS report is grossly misleading because the report said that if the Government had already made up their minds to introduce legislation of this kind, uncertainty would be resolved by dealing with that legislation as quickly as possible. There is nothing in the report that says that the legislation is desirable or necessary.

Mr. Booth: I have not misrepresented the report, though I have naturally selected the two pieces relevant to the matter we are debating—the urgency of

the legislation and the need for the timetable motion.
Following two previous debates and a Second Reading, we spent 36 sittings in Committee discussing 381 amendments to a Bill of 18 clauses and five schedules. In all, 85¼ hours were spent on the detailed provisions of the Bill. It was a matter of some regret to me that the Opposition chose to waste some of that time on matters of procedure that had nothing to do with the substance of the Bill.
One rather interesting example of our proceedings occurred on our sixth sitting. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who played a notable part in our proceedings, moved an amendment debated by some of his hon. Friends. After my reply, the hon. Member rose to make a further submission. That second speech was not completed on the next sitting of 11th March, but had to wait until 16th March to be completed—something of a record.
The reason was not the length of the hon. Member's speech, but the fact that his hon. Friends chose to spend most of our seventh sitting discussing whether the Committee should adjourn as a result of a vote which had taken place in the House on the previous evening and which had nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Shall I have sufficient opportunity to develop the points that I was making in that speech, which have still not been completed? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that one day under the timetable is enough to debate these important issues?

Mr. Booth: Many of the important amendments that we debated at length in Committee—I make no complaint about the length of those debates as I think it was important that they should take place—have been tabled again on Report. Many of them are in exactly the same terms. In fact, more than 50 of the amendments tabled for Report are in the same terms as those with which we dealt previously. A large number are concerned with individual ports, the House having decided in principle in favour of a mechanism under which the National Dock Labour Board and the Secretary of State may determine the appropriate areas for the regulation of dock work. I


put it to the House that it would make a nonsense of our procedures to return on Report to series of 100 debates to determine which individual ports were out and which individual ports were in.
The Government believe that a motion to curtail the debate on the Dock Work Regulation Bill is necessary so as to allow time for the consideration of the Bill by the House and to enable a decision to be reached. I agree that previously we have been able to reach agreements on timing—for example, the Industrial Relations Bill—and I join with those who regret that it has not been possible on this occasion. This procedure is necessary only because the tactics that the Opposition have pursued have prevented the Government from obtaining legislation in the final months of this Session. The Dock Work Regulation Bill is important. It is controversial, but it requires the determination of the House. The timetable motion will make it possible for that determination to take place.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. David Price: I am afraid that the Secretary of State for Employment fell below his normal form in the reasons that he deployed for allowing only one day on Report for this Bill. A number of important events have taken place since the proceedings in Committee

were completed that have a direct bearing on the Bill as at present drafted and on the whole framework of the Government's scheme.

First, we have had the important annual review of the Port of London Authority, which identifies even more clearly than before that the major labour relations problem in our ports lies in London, and that it will not be solved by calling more people's work dock work, work that is currently not so designated. The major problem in London is the rundown of the East End of London and the lack of job opportunities along the river. That is the major problem to which both sides of the House should address themselves. It is a problem that will not be solved by the Bill. Therefore, that is no reason for hurrying it through.

Secondly, we have—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion.

MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 44 (Allocation of time to Bills).

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 311.

Hall, Sir John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marten, Neil
Sainsbury, Tim


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mates, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mather, Carol
Scott, Nicholas


Hannam, John
Maude, Angus
Scott-Hopkins, James


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mawby, Ray
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Havers, Sir Michael
Mayhew, Patrick
Shepherd, Colin


Hawkins, Paul
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shersby, Michael


Hayhoe, Barney
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Silvester, Fred


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mills, Peter
Sims, Roger


Henderson, Douglas
Miscampbell, Norman
Sinclair, Sir George


Heseltine, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hicks, Robert
Moate, Roger
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Higgins, Terence L.
Molyneaux, James
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Holland, Philip
Monro, Hector
Speed, Keith


Hooson, Emlyn
Montgomery, Fergus
Spence, John


Hordern, Peter
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morgan, Geraint
Sproat, Iain


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Stainton, Keith


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stanley, John


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hurd, Douglas
Mudd, David
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neave, Airey
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hltchin)


James, David
Neubert, Michael
Stokes, John


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Newton, Tony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Jessel, Toby
Normanton, Tom
Tapsell, Peter


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Nott, John
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Tebbit, Norman


Jopling, Michael
Osborn, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Page, John (Harrow West)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Paisley, Rev Ian
Thompson, George


Kershaw, Anthony
Pardoe, John
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Kilfedder, James
Pattie, Geoffrey
Townsend, Cyril D.


Kimball, Marcus
Penhaligon, David
Trotter, Neville


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Percival, Ian
Tugendhat, Christopher


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kirk, Sir Peter
Pink, R. Bonner
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Viggers, Peter


Knight, Mrs Jill
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Knox, David
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wakeham, John


Lamont, Norman
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Lane, David
Raison, Timothy
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rathbone, Tim
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Wall, Patrick


Lawrence, Ivan
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Walters, Dennis


Lawson, Nigel
Rees-Oavies, W. R.
Warren, Kenneth


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Reid, George
Watt, Hamish


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Weatherill, Bernard


Lloyd, Ian
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Wells, John


Loveridge, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Welsh, Andrew


Luce, Richard
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ridsdale, Julian
Wiggin, Jerry


MacCormlck, Iain
Rifklnd, Malcolm
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


McCrindle, Robert
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Winterton, Nicholas


McCusker, H.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Macfarlane, Nell
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


MacGregor, John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Younger, Hon George


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)



McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Ross, William (Londonderry)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Madel, David
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Buchan, Norman


Allaun, Frank
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchanan, Richard


Anderson, Donald
Bishop, E. S.
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)


Archer, Peter
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)


Armstrong, Ernest
Boardman, H.
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Ashley, Jack
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Campbell, Ian


Ashton, Joe
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Canavan, Dennis


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cant, R. B.


Atkinson, Norman
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Carmichael, Neil


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bradley, Tom
Carter, Ray


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Cartwright, John


Bates, Alf
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara


Bean, R. E.
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Clemitson, Ivor


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)







Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Owen, Dr David


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Padley, Walter


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Park, George


Conlan, Bernard
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Parker, John


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Parry, Robert


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Junner, Greville
Pendry, Tom


Crawshaw, Richard
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Perry, Ernest


Cronin, John
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Phipps, Dr Colin


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
John, Brynmor
Prescott, John


Cryer, Bob
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Radice, Giles


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kelley, Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kerr, Russell
Robinson, Geoffrey


Deakins, Eric
Kilroy-Sllk, Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kinnock, Neil
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lambie, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lamborn, Harry
Rooker, J. W.


Dempsey, James
Lamond, James
Roper, John


Doig, Peter
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rose, Paul B.


Dormand, J. D.
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lee, John
Rowlands, Ted


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sandelson, Neville


Dunn, James A.
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Sedgemore, Brian


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Selby, Harry


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Eadie, Alex
Lipton, Marcus
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Edge, Geoff
Litterick, Tom
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Edwards Robert (Wolv SE)
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Loyden, Eddie
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Luard, Evan
Silkln, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


English, Michael
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Ennals, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Sillars, James


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Silverman, Julius


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McCartney, Hugh
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, John (Newton)
McDonald, Miss Oonagh
Small, William


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Faulds, Andrew
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Snape, Peter


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
MacKenzie, Gregor
Spearing, Nigel


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Maciennan, Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Flannery, Martin
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
McNamara, Kevin
Stoddart, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Madden, Max
Stott, Roger


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Magee, Bryan
Strang, Gavin


Ford, Ben
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon
Summersklll, Hon Dr Shirley


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Swain, Thomas


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marks, Kenneth
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


George, Bruce
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Gilbert, Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tierney, Sydney


Ginsburg, David
Meacher, Michael
Tinn, James


Golding, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tomlinson, John


Gould, Bryan
Mendelson, John
Tomney, Frank


Gourlay, Harry
Mikardo, Ian
Torney, Tom


Graham, Ted
Milian, Bruce
Tuck, Raphael


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Urwin, T. W.


Grant, John (Islington C)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Grocotf, Bruce
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Wainwrlght, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Moonman, Eric
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Ward, Michael


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Moyle, Roland
Watkins, David


Hatton, Frank
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Watkinson, John


Hayman, Mrs Helens
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Weetch, Ken


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Newens, Stanley
Weitzman, David


Heffer, Eric S.
Noble, Mike
Wellbeloved, James


Hooley, Frank
Oakes, Gordon
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Horam, John
Ogden, Eric
White, James (Pollok)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm'H)
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitehead, Phillip


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Orbach, Maurice
Whitlock, William


Huckfield, Les
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ovenden, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)







Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Wise, Mrs Audrey



Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Woodall, Alec
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Williams, Sir Thomas
Woof, Robert
Mr James Hamilton and


Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Young, David (Bolton E)



Wilson, William (Coventry SE)






Question accordingly negatived.


Main Question put accordingly:—


The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 305.




Division No. 261.]
AYES
[10.45 p.m.


Abse, Leo
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Janner, Grevilie


Aliaun, Frank
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Anderson, Donald
Dempsey, James
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Archer, Peter
Doig, Peter
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dormand, J. D.
John, Brynmor


Ashley, Jack
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Ashton, Joe
Duffy, A. E. P.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dunn, James A.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Atkinson, Norman
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Eadie, Alex
Judd, Frank


Barnett. Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Edge, Geoff
Kaufman, Gerald


Bates, Alf
Edwards Robert (Wolv SE)
Kelley, Richard


Bean, R. E.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Kerr, Russell


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
English, Michael
Kinnock, Neil


Bidwell, Sydney
Ennais, David
Lambie, David


Bishop, E. S.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lamborn, Harry


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lamond, James


Boardman, H.
Evans, John (Newton)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Leadbitter, Ted


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Faulds, Andrew
Lee, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Bradley, Tom
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flannery, Martin
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Lipton, Marcus


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Litterick, Tom


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lomas, Kenneth


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Ford, Ben
Loyden, Eddie


Buchan, Norman
Forrester, John
Luard, Evan


Buchanan, Richard
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Freeson, Reginald
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McCartney, Hugh


Campbell, Ian
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McDonald, Miss Oonagh


Canavan, Dennis
George, Bruce
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Cant, R. B.
Gilbert, Dr John
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Carmichael, Neil
Ginsburg, David
MacKenzie, Gregor


Carter, Ray
Golding, John
Mackintosh, John P.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gould, Bryan
Maclennan, Robert


Cartwrlght, John
Gourlay, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Graham, Ted
McNamara, Kevin


Clemitson, Ivor
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Madden, Max


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Magee, Bryan


Cohen, Stanley
Grocott, Bruce
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mahon, Simon


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hardy, Peter
Mallalleu, J. P. W.


Concannon, J. D.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marks, Kenneth


Conlan, Bernard
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Marquand, David


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Corbett, Robin
Hatton, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Maynard, Miss Joan


Crawshaw, Richard
Heffer, Eric S.
Meacher, Michael


Cronin, John
Hooley, Frank
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Horam, John
Mendelson, John


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm'H)
Mikardo, Ian


Cryer, Bob
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Millan, Bruce


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Huckfield, Les
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Dalyell, Tarn
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Moonman, Eric


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Moyle, Roland


Deakins, Eric
Jackson, Colin (BrighouM)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King







Newens, Stanley
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Tomney, Frank


Noble, Mike
Rowlands, Ted
Torney, Tom


Oakes, Gordon
Sandelson, Neville
Tuck, Raphael


Ogden, Eric
Sedgemore, Brian
Urwin, T. W.


O'Halloran, Michael
Selby, Harry
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Orbach, Maurice
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Ovenden, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Owen, Dr David
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Padley, Walter
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Ward, Michael


Palmer, Arthur
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Watkins, David


Park, George
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Watkinson, John


Parker, John
Sillars, James
Weetch, Ken


Parry, Robert
Silverman, Julius
Weitzman, David


Pavitt, Laurie
Skinner, Dennis
Wellbeloved, James


Pearl, Rt Hon Fred
Small, William
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Pendry, Tom
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
White, James (Pollok)


Perry, Ernest
Snape, Peter
Whitehead, Phillip


Phipps, Dr Colin
Spearing, Nigel
Whitlock, William


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Prescott, John
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Price, William (Rugby)
Sloddart, David
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Radice, Giles
Stott, Roger
Williams, Sir Thomas


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Richardson, Miss Jo
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Swain, Thomas
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Woodall, Alec


Robinson, Geoffrey
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Woof, Robert


Roderick, Caerwyn
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)



Rooker, J. W.
Tierney, Sydney
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roper, John
Tinn, James
Mr. James Hamilton and


Rose, Paul B.
Tomlinson, John
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Cope, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Aitken, Jonathan
Cardle, John H.
Gorst, John


Alison, Michael
Cormack, Patrick
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Costain, A. P.
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Arnold, Tom
Crawford, Douglas
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Critchley, Julian
Gray, Hamish


Awdry, Daniel
Crouch, David
Griffiths, Eldon


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Crowder, F. P.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Baker, Kenneth
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Grist, Ian


Banks, Robert
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Grylls, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hall, Sir John


Bell, Ronald
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Drayson, Burnaby
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hampson, Dr Keith


Benyon, W.
Dunlop, John
Hannam, John


Biffen, John
Durant, Tony
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Biggs-Davison, John
Dykes, Hugh
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Blaker, Peter
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hastings, Stephen


Body, Richard
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Havers, Sir Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Elliott, Sir William
Hawkins, Paul


Bottomley, Peter
Emery, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Eyre, Reginald
Henderson, Douglas


Bradford, Rev Robert
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Heseltine, Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hicks, Robert


Brittan, Leon
Farr, John
Higgins, Terence L.


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Fell, Anthony
Holland, Philip


Brotherton, Michael
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Hooson, Emlyn


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hordern, Peter


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Howell, David (Guildford)


Buck, Antony
Fookes, Miss Janet
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Budgen, Nick
Forman, Nigel
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Bulmer, Esmond
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Burden, F. A.
Fox, Marcus
Hunt, John (Bromley)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Hurd, Douglas


Carlisle, Mark
Freud, Clement
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Carson, John
Fry, Peter
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
James, David


Channon, Paul
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)


Churchill, W. S.
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Jessel, Toby


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Clegg, Walter
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Jopling, Michael


Cockcroft, John
Goodhart, Philip
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Goodhew, Victor
Kaberry, Sir Donald







Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Mudd, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Kershaw, Anthony
Neave, Airey
Skeet, T. H. H.


Kilfedder, James
Nelson, Anthony
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Kimball, Marcus
Neubert, Michael
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Newton, Tony
Speed, Keith


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Normanton, Tom
Spence, John


Kirk, Sir Peter
Nott, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Onslow, Cranley
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Sproat, Iain


Knox, David
Osborn, John
Stainton, Keith


Lamont, Norman
Page, John (Harrow West)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lane, David
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stanley, John


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Paisley, Rev Ian
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Pardoe, John
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Lawrence, Ivan
Parkinson, Cecil
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Lawson, Nigel
Pattle, Geoffrey
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Penhaligon, David
Stokes, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Percival, Ian
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lloyd, Ian
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Peter


Loveridge, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Luce, Richard
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tebbit, Norman


MacCormick, Iain
Prior, Rt Hon James
Temple-Morris, Peter


McCrindle, Robert
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


McCusker, H.
Raison, Timothy
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Macfarlane, Nell
Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, George


MacGregor, John
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Townsend, Cyril D.


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Trotter, Neville


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Reid, George
Tugendhat, Christopher


Madel, David
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Marten, Neil
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Viggers, Peter


Mates, Michael
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Mather, Carol
Ridsdale, Julian
Wakeham, John


Maude, Angus
Rifkind, Malcolm
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Mawby, Ray
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Maxwell-Hysiop, Robin
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wall, Patrick


Mayhew, Patrick
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Walters, Dennis


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Warren, Kenneth


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Watt, Hamish


Mills, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Weatherill, Bernard


Miscampbell, Norman
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Wells, John


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Welsh, Andrew


Moate, Roger
Sainsbury, Tim
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Molyneaux, James
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Monro, Hector
Scott, Nicholas
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Montgomery, Fergus
Scott-Hopkins, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Morgan, Geraint
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Younger, Hon George


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Shepherd, Colin



Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Shersby, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Silvester, Fred
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Sims, Roger
Mr. Anthony Berry.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bills:—

A. HEALTH SERVICES BILL

Committee

1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Health Services Bill (in this Order referred to as 'the Health Bill') is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before the 3rd day of August 1976.

(2) The Standing Committee on the Health Bill shall meet at half-past Ten o'clock and half-past Four o'clock on each day (except Mondays and Fridays) on which the House sits on or after the 21st day of July 1976, until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.

(3) At a Sitting of the Standing Committee at which any Proceedings on the Health Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolu-

tion of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the Proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(4) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

(5) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule but the resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee.

(6) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Health Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee


except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(7) On the conclusion of the Proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Health Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at eleven o'clock on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolutions as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Health Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the second day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Health Bill to the House.

B. DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL

3.—(1) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Dock Work Regulation Bill (in this Order referred to as 'the Dock Bill') shall be completed in one allotted day, and shall be brought to a conclusion at eleven o'clock on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolutions as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Dock Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the 23rd day of July 1976.

C. GENERAL

Resolutions of Business Committee

4.—(1) The resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) for either Bill may be varied by a further report so made, whether or not within the time specified for that Bill in paragraph 2(2) or 3(2) (as the case may be) of this Order, and whether or not the resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(2) The resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of either Bill are taken.

Dilatory Motions

5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on either Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

6.—(1) On an allotted day for either Bill paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on that Bill for one hour after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which Proceedings on either Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period under this paragraph.

(3) If an allotted day for either Bill is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the period during which Proceedings on that Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under this paragraph, and the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on that Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall also be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion.

Private Business

7. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day for either Bill shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on that Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on that Bill, or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the Completion of those Proceedings.

Conclusion of Proceedings

8.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(b) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker


shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If, at Seven o'clock on an allotted day for either Bill, any Proceedings which, under this Order or a Resolution of a Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.

(4) If a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over to Seven o'clock on an allotted day for either Bill, or to any later time under sub-paragraph (3) above, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on that Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day at any hour falling after the beginning of the Proceedings on that Motion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental Orders

9.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and the last foregoing paragraph shall apply as it applies to Proceedings on one of the Bills on an alotted day for that Bill.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on either Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for

varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

10. Nothing in this Order or in a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee or the Business Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on one of the Bills or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on either Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

11.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day for either Bill, no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

12. In this Order—
'allotted day', in relation to either Bill, means any day (other than a Friday) on which that Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the day provided that in each case a Motion for allotting time to the Proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day has been agreed on a previous day;
'the Bills' means the Health Services Bill and the Dock Work Regulation Bill;
'Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee on the Health Bill;
'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL AND EDUCATION BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

10.59 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bills:—

Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Rent (Agriculture) Bill shall be completed in one allotted day, and—

(a) the Proceedings on Consideration shall be brought to a conclusion at half-past Ten o'clock, and
(b) the proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion at Midnight.

(2) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Education Bill shall be completed in one allotted day, and—

(a) the Proceedings on Consideration shall be brought to a conclusion at half-past Ten o'clock, and
(b) the Proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion at Midnight.

(3) Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committees) shall not apply to this Order.

Dilatory Motions

2. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on either Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

3.—(1) On an allotted day for either Bill paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on that Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which Proceedings on either Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period under this paragraph.

(3) If an allotted day for either Bill is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the period during which Proceedings on that Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under this paragraph, and the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on that Bill which, under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall also be postponed for a

period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion.

Private Business

4. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day for either Bill shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on that Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on that Bill, or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the Completion of those Proceedings.

Conclusion of Proceedings

5.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill):
(b) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government:
(c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If, at Seven o'clock on an allotted day for either Bill, any Proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.

(4) If a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over to Seven o'clock on an allotted day for either Bill, or to any later time under sub-paragraph (3) above, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day at any hour falling after the beginning of the Proceedings on that Motion shall be postponed


for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

6.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and the last foregoing paragraph shall apply as it applies to Proceedings on one of the Bills on an allotted day for that Bill.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on either Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

7. Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on one of the Bills or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on either Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

8.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day for either Bill, no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

9. In this Order—
'allotted day' in relation to either Bill means any day (other than a Friday) on which that Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the day provided that in each case a Motion for allotting time to the Proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day has been agreed on a previous day,
'the Bills' means the Rent (Agriculture) Bill and the Education Bill.

These two Bills are long-overdue measures. One seeks to promote housing equality and the other seeks to promote greater opportunity in education.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who will reply, will deal at greater length with the Rent (Agriculture) Bill, on which he is uniquely qualified to speak. He has also been a practitioner in education for many

years. Before taking his present office, he had a distinguished and greatly respected period of office as Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science.

The Rent (Agriculture) Bill received a Second Reading in this House by a substantial majority of 40. It had 12 sittings in Committee, and this stage in the parliamentary Session having been reached, it is necessary for the Bill to have a timetable if it is to conclude its remaining stages in time for completion and enactment in the present Session.

The Education Bill is more controversial than the Rent (Agriculture) Bill, and it has been subjected to a lengthy and strenuously contested passage. The House will recall that it received its Second Reading on 4th February by a majority of 41, but there had been a previous debate on the subject matter of the Bill—namely, in the debate on the Address—well before the Bill was prepared and printed. Indeed, on 24th November last year an amendment to the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech was rejected by a majority of 44. I must point out that before the Bill was prepared I went in for open consultation. I invited people to contribute comments and issued a Press statement setting out in general terms what I had in mind. I was criticised for doing so, but one gets used to that.

At the conclusion of the debate on 24th November, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said:
We shall oppose the Bill within the House by every parliamentary means."—[Official Report, 24th November 1975; Vol. 901, c. 509.]
That was said even before the Bill was presented.

I understand that the Committee—I was not privileged to be a member of it—occupied 35 sittings lasting 86 hours for a Bill of only 10 clauses. I gather that discussion of Clause 1 alone occupied 15 sittings.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should oppose the Bill by extra-parliamentary means? Is he saying that, because he may have asked people to make representations to him beforehand, we now need only a very short Report stage?

Mr. Mulley: I have not reached the Report stage. I am still dealing with the Committee stage. I was making the point that, when a number of Opposition Members give advance notice even before a Bill is printed that they intend strenuously to oppose it, they should not be surprised when the Government use the same Standing Orders and procedures to ensure the passage of the Bill.
It may be of interest to the House to know, for the purposes of comparison, that the time devoted to the Bill was more than was devoted to the whole of the Education Act 1944. That Act was 10 times the size of this Education Bill and its Committee stage was concluded in 14 sittings on the Floor of the House.
I regretted not having been present during the Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why were you not there?"] I did not appear because I understand that one cannot participate in Committee proceedings if one is not a member of the Committee. I had other engagements on Tuesday and Thursday mornings which I found it necessary to attend. I would have been criticised if I had been a member of the Committee but was not present. It is well known that Cabinet meetings are held and must take priority over Committees.
Over and above that, I had two extremely competent Ministers who conducted the proceedings, and I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I am sorry to inform hon. Members that I am unable to hear what is being said. I know that hon. Members are anxious to see that the debate is relevant, and it must be kept in order.

Mr. Mulley: I was congratulating my hon. Friends on their conduct of the Government's case in Committee and myself on being fortunate in having so excellent a Minister of State and an Under-Secretary. That was recognised by both sides of the Committee.
It was a long and entertaining Committee stage. I am told by admirers of the hon. Member for Chelmsford that nothing similar in terms of entertainment had been known in the Palace of West-

minster since strolling players were last heard in Westminster Hall. Many ripples of mirth were heard in the corridors, partly because the hon. Member relapsed into his native Latin and partly because classical allusions were flying like shuttlecocks from one side of the Committee to the other. Generally speaking, an enlightening and entertaining time was had by all. The only problem was the length of time it took: 86 hours.
In the normal course of events, the Bill was brought back to the Floor of the House for consideration. We have already had three days occupying 23½ hours on that stage. When we began, there were over 100 new clauses and over 150 amendments on the Notice Paper. I should make clear, because it is not unimportant, that there is not one Government new clause or amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) has two drafting amendments to a new clause which the Committee accepted against the advice of the Government and which I am content to allow to remain in the Bill. Except for that and a new clause and an amendment, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) had a half share and which led to a valuable debate on disablement, all the new clauses and amendments were tabled by Opposition Members.
Since 32 groups of new clauses and amendments were selected by the Chair, and experience is that they would be debated for two and a half to three hours each, the complete Bill would have taken, with normal procedure, a very long time indeed.
One did one's best to accommodate the wishes of the Opposition, but their attitude was illustrated by their attitude towards the 10 o'clock rule. On the first day that rule was suspended, as is normally the case with a Bill of this sort. On the second day the Opposition opposed suspension of the 10 o'clock rule, indicating that they thought it was time to rise, but at 1.15 a.m., when I proposed the adjournment of the debate, they opposed that because they wanted to continue to speak. It was a little difficult to understand their tactics.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas (Chelmsford)rose—

Mr. Mulley: I should like to complete this part of my speech before giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
On the third day, having on the day before, because the days were consecutive, incurred the Opposition's displeasure as they opposed the 10 o'clock suspension, I encountered complaints when I did not move a similar motion. I found it difficult to know what the Opposition wanted.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Since the tactics of the Opposition seem to have escaped the right hon. Gentleman, I should point out that we voted against the suspension to indicate that we should have preferred to have the discussion at a reasonable hour in the morning. [Interruption.] But we were denied that. We should have preferred to have the discussion at night rather than, as it turns out, have no discussion at all. Those two actions were reconcilable.
While I am on my feet, I should like to point out that the right hon. Gentleman has just paid a tribute to his former Under-Secretary of State. What a pity it is that she cannot reciprocate, having resigned because she could not stand the right hon. Gentleman's policies.

Mr. Mulley: I had two very good Under-Secretaries of State. It was a great regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) decided to resign. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that it was not because of any differences of view about the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] My hon. Friend, to my knowledge, has not had the slightest doubt about the wisdom of the Bill and what we are seeking to do in it. My great sorrow at losing my hon. Friend was compensated by the great talent of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Miss Jackson).
I repeat that the Opposition, as they were entitled to do, gave notice on 24th November that they intended to oppose the Bill by every parliamentary means available to them. I think that the Bill came within the definition given by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) in the previous debate—that Bills should be introduced before the end of February. This Bill was introduced in January and had its Second Reading on 4th February.
I think that minority rights have been amply safeguarded, but I must remind the House that the majority also have rights. We have the right to get our legislation through. As I said earlier, if the Opposition are entitled to use the procedures and Standing Orders of this House to hold up business, we are entitled to use them to get the business through.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Rarely can a bad case have been so feebly put as it has been put this evening by the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Indeed, as one heard him speak on education, one thought that he might have been wiser to stick to agriculture.
I intend to confine my remarks to education. I shall leave the argument against the Rent (Agriculture) Bill portion of this extraordinary double to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and others of my hon. Friends who may speak on this matter.
The Secretary of State has based his case for the guillotine on the most extraordinary grounds. He asks that a Bill should be judged by the number of clauses it contains. That is an example of pathetic fallacy.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Mulley's law.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sure that the Secretary of State knows my literary reference. It is about the attribution to inanimate objects of feelings and thought processes of animate ones. This is a process which has been pursued by the Secretary of State for some time.
Of course, it is not the number of clauses which is important but the principles which those clauses enshrine. That is the test of the importance or unimportance of a Bill. A Bill which upsets the settlement for education laid down by the 1944 Education Act—which, whatever its limitations and imperfections, lasted for more than 30 years—and which destroys the careful balance, which has been created by every Education Act since 1870, between central Government and local authorities and makes unprecedented attacks on the autonomy of voluntary aided schools by depriving them of


their powers over organisation is surely a major piece of legislation. Whether one supports it or abhors it, it is entitled to be thoroughly examined and painstakingly assessed and discussed by the House.
The first count of indictment against the motion is that when a Bill of such major importance is before us no guillotine should be introduced until it has been thoroughly discussed, unless there is patent filibustering against the Bill. There has been no evidence of that. [Interruption.] No, there has not. Indeed, the Secretary of State in his speech specifically conceded that there had been no filibustering against the Bill and that the measure had been fairly, thoroughly and adequately approached by the Opposition.
That charge of the importance of the Bill and the necessity for discussion in this House is strengthened by the fact that the Bill is not supported by the majority of people in the country. Take the example of the teachers. When they were consulted in a poll conducted by The Times Educational Supplement, it was shown that 70 per cent., whatever schools they were teaching in, were in favour of the maintenance of selective schools.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Absolute nonsense.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That was the result of the poll conducted by The Times Educational Supplement, which has consistently supported the Government in their policy of spreading comprehensive schools.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman knows that the National Union of Teachers, which represents the vast majority of teachers—[Interruption.] It is typical, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that hon. Gentlemen opposite should abuse the greatest teachers' organisation of all. That organisation is repeatedly on the record as wanting the Bill.

Hon. Members: What about parents?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am not disputing that point, but the executive of the NUT is not representative of the political or educational views of even the majority of its own membership. It is well known that the majority of teachers are Con-

servatives, but one would never guess that by looking at the executive of the NUT.
There is another piece of evidence. When the Opposition launched a petition against the Bill, we secured more than half a million signatures in just over two months. That is a fairly clear indication, since the signatures came from all over the country, of the lack of support that the Bill commands in the country as a whole. If the Secretary of State doubts what I am saying, he should persuade the Prime Minister to call a General Election to determine the verdict of the people. That would be clear and persuasive evidence about people's views.
This policy is not even supported by members of the Labour Party, as I was able to witness from a meeting I attended at the Central Hall, Westminster. It was called in support of the voluntary aided grammar schools and others in the London area. So many people were saying that they supported our petition although they were members of the Socialist Party that I had to say that the Conservatives also had done something in favour of the grammar schools.
It is incredible that, faced with the immense problems that confront the Secretary of State in education, with the indications from the Bennett Report and from the scandal at the William Tyndale School that all is not well—

Mr. Cormack: The Prime Minister's scandal.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We cannot be held responsible for our relations. I am not responsible for mine, and the Prime Minister cannot be held responsible for his, although as far as possible one should practise what one preaches.
The Secretary of State for Education is so obsessed with the Bill that he has done nothing to help the 209,000 unemployed school leavers who are now disfiguring the unemployment register. What a sense of priorities the right hon. Gentleman has shown.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler): Does the hon. Gentleman realise that we accept his own obsessions and that we take as the clearest mark of them the fact that he put down 103 new clauses to a Bill which was originally


10 clauses long and which came out of Committee 12 clauses long, and that not one of his clauses was relevant to the Bill which he contends is the major change in educational policy in the last 30-plus years? How does he justify that?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Minister of State should know by now that no justification is required by me of selection of new clauses by the Chair. It does not surprise us, in view of this Bill and others, that the hon. Gentleman should take that view.
The second count of our indictment against the Government is equally clear. The need for the guillotine has not arisen from force of circumstances. It has not come about as a result of some kind of act of God. It has not even come about as a result of the activities of the Opposition. It is due only to the incompetence of the Government's business managers. The combination of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) as Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) as Chief Whip has been the worst political disaster since the Fox-North coalition. It would be an exaggeration to say that hon. Members are regretting the departure of the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) from that post, but they are regretting the absence of the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). We all long to hear from him those soothing words "Not next week".
The incompetence of the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip on the Floor of the House was worthily matched by the non-behaviour of the Ministers in Committee. The Secretary of State never came anywhere near the Committee on this vital Bill, to which he professes to attach so much importance. He not only excluded himself from the Committee but he never once came to the Committee room to see what his Ministers were doing. For the last part of our deliberations the Secretary of State was in the Soviet Union inspecting selective schools there.

Mr. Mulley: I want the hon. Gentleman to get at least one fact in his speech right. It was because of the Opposition's

attitude to the Bill and to pairing that I had to curtail my visit to the Soviet Union, which took place only in the vacation. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) recommended me to go to the Soviet Union. I learned quite a lot.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We must be ecumenical and welcome the right hon. Gentleman back. I pass from his Russian activities, which were so happily curtailed by the firm action of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, to the activities of the Minister of State, to whom a fulsome tribute was paid by the Secretary of State. We fully expect that the resignation of the Minister of State will shortly follow. That is what is called a beneficial side effect. The Minister of State considered it more important to visit an obscure college of further education in the north of England than to attend to his duties in Committee. We never knew to which side of Hadrian's Wall the hon. Gentleman was clinging.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I have long known of the hon. Gentleman's undying conflict with the Conservative chairman of the Lancashire Education Committee, but he must not carry it to these lengths. The Nelson and Colne College is a jewel in the crown of further education in this country, and the hon. Gentleman should not deny the achievements of the Conservative authority in Lancashire in this way.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Minister of State is wrong. I was pointing out that it was his duty, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, to be in Committee listening to the debates. The fact that he visited a college of education was not the gravamen of our charge. It was that he abandoned his duties to the Committee, so much so that for one sitting there was no Minister present from the Department of Education and Science. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales is not, to the best of my knowledge, a Minister in that Department. If the contempt with which the Committee was treated by Ministers was not bad enough, they never made full use of the time they had in Committee. For the first 10 sittings there were morning sittings only. When we had afternoon sittings, Ministers did not make full use of them. There was


only one occasion throughout our deliberations in Committee when we sat after 7 o'clock in the evening.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Mr. Gerry Fowlerrose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: No, I shall finish what I am saying. The hon. Gentleman is bobbing up and down like a jack-in-the-box.

Mr. Mike Noble: Mr. Mike Noble (Rossendale)rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall give way in a moment. Labour Members must not get so excited.
The Committee was normally adjourned, despite protest, between 6 o'clock and 7 o'clock each evening. Taking the average morning session as two and a half hours, and the average afternoon session as four and a half hours, there was a maximum of 123 hours of debate in Committee. Of that maximum the Government used only 86 hours. Therefore, approximately 35 hours was wasted. That is the equivalent of five days of debate on the Floor of the House. I give way.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Mr. Gerry Fowlerrose—

Mr. Noble: Mr. Noblerose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not know to whom the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) gave way. Mr. Noble.

Mr. Noble: In view of the hon. Gentleman's comments about my hon. Friend's absence, perhaps he will tell the House how many times he was absent from the Committee for religious occasions.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall be delighted to do so. I believe that I was absent for three-quarters of an hour one evening to attend an official religious function.
Those who were members of the Committee were able to observe the behaviour of Ministers during those proceedings, but exactly the same attitude was mirrored on the Floor of the House on Report when, not once, not twice, but three times, the Secretary of State abandoned his Bill because he wanted to go home early to bed. The debate was adjourned at 1 o'clock in the morning on one occasion, at 1 o'clock on another and finally at 10 o'clock in the

evening. After such behaviour, the Secretary of State is morally estopped from introducing a guillotine motion.
There have been complaints from the Minister of State about the number of new clauses that have been brought forward, but the Government got themselves into a mess initially by serving up a dog's dinner of a Bill which covered everything from comprehensive schools to school milk. They had a Long Title which enabled the Opposition, as was their right, to debate constructively their alternative education policy until the guillotine descended fully.
Our second charge is simple but devastating. The Government got themselves into this mess by their own incompetence and negligence, and the only way in which they can get themselves out of it is by subverting the procedures and traditions of the House.
Our third charge is that they were prepared to rig constitutional practice to get their own way, sweeping away Mr. Speaker's ruling when it suited them. I shall not use the word "cheating" when referring to pairing as that caused a little altercation earlier, but the Government have been culpably negligent and careless over their pairing arrangements. Finally, they have devised an unprecedented guillotine motion.
The Leader of the House is not present. No doubt he found the truths he had to hear earlier today too uncomfortable to hear any more of them. He was right to say that on occasions the guillotine has to be used. He said he disliked it, and so do I. But number is of the essence of the case. It was the Leader of the House himself who in an earlier speech said that it was a matter of degree. But to guillotine five major Bills in three motions in one day's debate is to move the issue from that of quantity to that of quality. While the Government may be within the letter of the law in so acting, they have utterly changed the spirit of the Standing Order.
The resentment which is felt by the Opposition against the Leader of the House is not because he says inconsistent things—everyone in the House has done that—but because he has held himself up consistently as the champion—[Interruption]—yes, he has, and we have all heard him—of the rights, liberties and traditions of the House and has then behaved as


no other Leader of the House in the whole of our history has behaved. We have seen two versions of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale—Mark I and Mark II, and Mark I is as dead as the dodo.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Rubbish.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Member was not here to listen to the speech of his right hon. Friend. If he comes into the Chamber only half-way through my speech, he has no right continually to interrupt from a sedentary position. The House is right to expose cant and hypocrisy whenever it sees them, and the House will always do so. It has done so so successfully that the Leader of the House has the shame not to appear any further this evening.
The issue behind the Bill and behind the motion is much more important than any hypocrisy or any dual standards that may be practised by the Leader of the House. There is a basic cleavage of principle between the two sides of the House, and it is shown up by the motion and by the previous behaviour of the Government. The Government do not regard the House, and the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale no longer regards the House, whatever his earlier views may have been, as the forum of the nation, as the forum in which friction can be rationally, reasonably, amicably and peacefully settled. They regard the House as an engine for the achievement of a Socialist programme.
It does not matter whether it be Mr. Speaker, the present procedure or the Members of the House if anyone stands in the way, he has to be swept away. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was right when she said that an Iron Curtain was coming down in Parliament. It is mirrored in the minds of Labour Members—not every one of them, but a sizeable proportion, particularly those below the Gangway who are so vociferous—who think of this legislature in terms and in a fashion more suitable to great Albania than Great Britain.
Exactly the same intolerant impulse lies behind the Education Bill itself. The Government want to do away with grammar schools and voluntary direct grant

schools. They want to truncate the rights of voluntary aided schools and to discriminate against and eventually to get rid of private schools. It is with one end in view, and it is to establish what has been the aim of all Socialist Parties on the Continent since their inception—to establish a State-dominated and State-controlled system of education wide open to manipulation for political purposes.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The hon. Gentleman has been talking of "tolerant impulses". Perhaps he might explain the tolerant impulses which drove the Leader of the Opposition to end pairing which has resulted in two very sick men being brought in to vote? That is entirely the responsibility of the total intolerance which the Conservative Opposition have shown.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has acted fully within her right in requesting Conservative Members not to pair in these circumstances, and she has the full support of the party in so doing. If she had not done that, we would not have paired in any event because the right to pair or not to pair is the right of individual Members of the House. If the Labour Party had observed that basic rule, they would not have got into the mess which led to the general suspension of pairing from the Conservative side of the House.
In these circumstances, the first duty of the Tory Party, when faced with an attack not only on our schools but on Parliament itself, is to follow the advice of certainly itself, is to follow the advice of cerproduced—Disraeli—and preserve our institutions. We shall use every parliamentary means we have to defend our institutions, and we can best do that this evening by resisting this rash, unprecedented, unconstitutional and pretentious motion.

Mr. John Page: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the previous debate I mentioned the absence of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy). When I referred to his absence I had no idea that he had had a serious operation yesterday and a further one this evening. I hope that the House will forgive me for any unintentional remark about the hon. Gentleman. I sincerely hope that he will


make a swift recovery, and I send him the best wishes, I am sure, of all hon. Members on all sides of the House for a quick recovery and best wishes to him and his family.

11.44 p.m.

Dr. Colin Phipps: I am somewhat hesitant to introduce an agricultural note after a lengthy educational introduction, but we are discussing the guillotining of two Bills.
I find myself in the unusual position of introducing the topic of the agricultural tied cottage into the debate from the Back Benches. I start by declaring a somewhat unhappy interest in tied cottages. I hoped that I would have an opportunity on Report and on Third Reading to take further some of the points I raised on Second reading.
While I accept entirely that the Government have every right to their legislation, and that guillotining in this case and in the case of the Education Bill is justified, it has robbed me of an opportunity to raise the matter for the second time, because I hoped to discuss these matters in Committee. After I made a lengthy speech on Second Reading, I went to my Whips and requested to be put on the Committee. In the past I had been fortunate to be placed on Committees, but this was the first time I had gone along and asked to be put on a Committee. To my surprise, I was told that I was not going to be a member of the Committee.
I accept that on this side of the House there is a well-known reluctance to become members of agriculture Committees—I think that is recognised by the whole House. But I have been a member of most agriculture Committees since I came to the House and certainly of nearly every Statutory Instruments Committee dealing with agriculture. In this case, I was told bluntly and honestly by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Harper) that I would not become a member of the Committee. I asked him why, and he replied that it was as a result of my speech on Second Reading. I asked "Would you mind in that case if I wrote to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection asking to be put on the Committee?" He replied "It does not make a blind bit of difference whether you do or not."

Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that my hon. Friend is at least technically out of order in referring to a private conversation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not know whether a letter to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection is a private communication, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) will not pursue the matter at great length.

Dr. Phipps: The matter was given some publicity in the agricultural Press and is hardly any longer a private matter. But the point is important: I have been deprived on two occasions of the opportunity to push a case which I believed to be important. I do not wish to discuss it now, but I hope that at least I shall have an opportunity on Third Reading to make it. Under the guillotine motion, however, it is highly unlikely that I shall have that opportunity. I have been deprived on two occasions of the opportunity to make a point which seems to me to be important. I am not here now to argue the validity of that point, but I should have liked the opportunity to put it.
The matter which concerns me most now is that of the Committee of Selection. Far from its being the independent Committee which in my naivety I had assumed it to be, it is apparently controlled and run by the Whips of the Government party. I am not trying to raise this matter on a point of order, but I should like to suggest that, in a gentle manner, Mr. Speaker and the Deputy Speakers might see whether we can achieve a situation in which hon. Members who are qualified to speak in a Committee are given the opportunity so to do. Perhaps my qualifications as being the only Labour Member who is a farmer and the possessor of a tied cottage were insufficient for me to be on the Committee, but surely they should have been taken into consideration.
I raise this point because it will be of importance when future legislation comes forward. Next Session we shall have the devolution Bill, about which I also hold certain opinions and which will take up a large proportion of the time of the House.

Mr. Corbett: My hon. Friend will not be on that either.

Dr. Phipps: I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) is right about that. But we are getting increasingly into a situation where we have tied Committees, with the Government increasingly filling Committees with hon. Members from this side of the House who are of one view only, or no view at all.

Mr. Anthony Buck: We have been following with interest the hon. Gentlemen's difficulty and dilemma and we have great sympathy with him. Would it not be logical for him to support us in voting against this iniquitous motion? Would not that be the unassailable logic of what he is saying?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) replies to that intervention, I must point out to him that I am finding some difficulty in seeing how the matter he is raising relates to the subject under discussion, which is the guillotine motion.

Dr. Phipps: The point I am trying to make, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that the motion is depriving me for the second time of making the point I wish to make to the Bill. I do not wish to push that matter further, but I hope that I shall have the opportunity to speak on Third Reading. I wonder whether, having been thought unfit to serve in Committee on one occasion, I shall ever be selected to serve on Committee again.
I support the principle of the Bill and that of the guillotine. I hope that the Government will allow an amendment on the topic which I raised on Second Reading so that is can be discussed by hon. Members who were not members of the Committee.

11.51 p.m.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: A number of hon. Members on this side of the House at least would like afterwards to have a gentle talk with the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) to discover how one does not get selected to sit on the Back Benches of a Committee. Perhaps he has an expertise on which we could draw. The serious point that he raised will excite the interest of the House because of its

serious underlying note—although I regret that the hon. Gentleman, after slightly unsheathing his sword, put it back into its scabbard again.
I must swing back to the other half of the debate—that concerning education. For several reasons, I believe that the Government are wrong to go for a guillotine on the Education Bill. All their control in relation to education stems overwhelmingly from their financial control. We are now increasingly moving—and who would have thought it possible?—into an era in which there will be, in important respects, no capital building programme wherewith to control the objectives of a Bill which is the subject of the guillotine. I would not have expected that from any Government, but it is the truth of the present situation. If there is no capital programme, the objectives of the Bill cannot be enforced. Words are empty if they cannot be backed up with cash.
We are also moving into a new era in terms of expenditure. We were warned of that by the Secretary of State for Education himself. I have in front of me a speech which he made to the annual conference of the Council of Local Education Authorities on 14th July in which he said that a joint inquiry into expenditure showed that those authorities were probably overspending at the rate of £135 million a year, or at a rate of 3 per cent. The warning was clear. Against that background, against the background of an increasingly drying-up capital programme and a severe reining back in current expenditure, the words in the Bill are meaningless. If the words are meaningless, it is an affront to Parliament to use something as vicious as the guillotine to get a Bill through.
The Government should think carefully before they use one guillotine and should think exceedingly carefully before using it on five Bills in one day. The onus of proof is on the Government. I wonder whether in future years they will deeply regret that they made these speeches today, because their words will be turned against them and they will be powerless to change them. I hope not, but that is the way in which our parliamentary system tends to develop. It is no use the Secretary of State's praying in aid the Education Act 1944, as he did. That gave the game away. It was an agreed


measure discussed by all parties. Granted, that was in war time. It was one of the great steps forward in our educational work together, far removed from the divisive nature of this Bill.
The second reason why the Bill is unnecessary is that there has been—and I welcome it with all my heart—a most encouraging move in the opinion of my party on comprehensive schools. Far less attention than is appropriate has been given to a remarkable speech, which was widely circulated within Conservative Party circles, by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who leads for us in these matters. I gladly pay the warmest tribute to what he said on 19th June on the subject of comprehensive schools. His speech nails for ever the concept that we on this side of the House are axiomatically lambasting all comprehensive schools. It nails for ever the myth that large numbers of them have not been created by Tory authorities under a Tory Government. Many of them are doing admirable educational work.
That speech also correctly identified the anxiety in many minds about the weaknesses which some comprehensive schools, like other types of school as well, have been displaying in recent years. The size argument is now over. We no longer want to create massive comprehensive schools. It is undoubtedly true that in an uncomfortably large number of them there has been an undue, although understandable, emphasis on the less able child to the detriment of the able child. That, too, was correctly identified.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is giving the impression that the Conservative Party is on record as being in favour of comprehensive education. Conservative speakers continually attack comprehensive education in a way which is bound to convey the idea that the party is against comprehensive education.
The point that the hon. Gentleman has just made about the size of comprehensive schools, as though the Labour Party is in favour only of very large comprehensive schools, is completely wrong. We believe that the experiment is succeeding. The points that the hon. Gentleman is making are points that all

educationalists, on both sides of the House, should be making on that score.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman illustrates perfectly what I am trying to say. He studiously forgets, or possibly does not know, that there was a period when people laughed out of court many people like me—and I have attended almost every debate concerned with the matter—who questioned the philosophy that in order to be acceptable a comprehensive school had for its own sake to be large. There was a long period of time when the Socialist Party attached itself directly, as an act of faith, to the very large comprehensive school. The massive schools provided by the former London County Council, now ILEA, or some of them, are a very good illustration of the sort of thing I mean.
Of course, if there is a dogmatic approach on these matters, error results. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read the speech to which I have gratefully drawn attention and which I believe correctly sets out the modern Conservative approach. It further demonstrates the lack of necessity for the Bill, and hence for the guillotine motion which is the subject of our discussion.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's position in these matters, and, although this may damage his reputation in his own party, in large measure I share his present position. Will he address himself, however, to the content of the speech to which he refers and repeated speeches in the Committee stage by his own Front Bench spokesmen, which were in accord with the speeches of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, suggesting that comprehensive schools could in some obscure way coexist with grammar schools—that selection could coexist with non-selection? We regard that as being at the heart of the Bill.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Do not let the hon. Gentleman start trying to drive a wedge between myself and any other Member of my party in this respect. I gladly repeat my great appreciation of the speech which I have just mentioned. If there have ever been differences of emphasis, there are no longer if this is


the approach and the lead we get in matters of this kind.
The Minister of State must be very careful before he is so dogmatic as to say that there can be an effective comprehensive system only when it is in a monopoly position—when it is the only type of school. He thinks so. I respect his right to think so. I am asking him to accept, on the other hand—I can document this without any difficulty at all, having most carefully asked and checked the facts—that there are heads of comprehensive schools who are not affected by and do not feel themselves prejudiced by the existence of a selective school within their midst.
I believe that there may actually positively be advantage in the dual system, the one giving the greater width of course—which is very valuable for many children, as pointed out in the speech to which I have referred—coexisting with a much narrower academic type of education which for some children can also be extremely valuable. The hon. Gentleman is falling into exactly the same trap as his predecessors down the line of laying down dogmatic theories which may not necessarily stand up to application in practice.
My third and final reason is that compulsion in matters of this kind begets resistance. If the comprehensive system is so persuasive, there is no need of compulsion. It will, if that is so, corn-mend itself by precept and example. If compulsion is necessary, something is wrong with the comprehensive system. That is at the heart and kernel of the resistance which I have to the Bill, and that is why I believe that the Government are doctrinally wrong to apply to a Bill of this nature something as vicious as a guillotine.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Max Madden: One of the few matters that I have in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) is that I was not a member of the Education Bill Committee. I believe that that may have afforded me certain benefits. I attended the debates on Second Reading and Report. Having listened to the speech by the hon. Members for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) this evening, I am glad

that I was not a member of the Committee on the Education Bill and that I did not have to endure 85 hours of debate at that level.
The majority of British people are often bewildered and amazed at the procedures of Parliament. They will be amazed that the Opposition now appear to want even more time in which to discuss a measure of 10 clauses which has already enjoyed 85 hours of debate. I say "appear to want" as we all know that in their hearts the Opposition do not want any more time in which to discuss the Bill. They are running out of arguments, comments and, indeed, opposition. If any proof of that were needed, surely the speech made tonight by the hon. Member for Chelmsford was proof indeed. I was at a total loss to understand what was the Opposition view on this Bill as the hon. Gentleman seemed to be at pains to avoid mentioning any of the issues contained in the Bill.

Mr. Noble: Will my hon. Friend take it from me, as a member of the Committee, that we spent so long discussing the Bill because the Tories did not understand their own policies? There was one line of policy from the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) and another from the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson). The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) shuttled between them like a goods train. It was that dispute on the Opposition side which prolonged the proceedings in Committee.

Mr. Madden: That is further evidence of my worst fears.
I return to the speech made by the hon. Member for Chelmsford. It was a third-rate, knockabout speech. We visited the executive room of the National Union of Teachers. We visited Russia and the William Tyndale School. We heard some rather hostile remarks about Lancashire. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is similarly hostile towards Yorkshire, especially West Yorkshire.
I shall make some brief remarks about comprehensive education in Calderdale, which is in West Yorkshire, in my constituency. I should also like to draw attention to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) about modern Conservatism, as we who live in Calderdale have


witnessed modern Conservatism in relation to educational policy—especially comprehensive education policy—over the past two years. We saw a reactionary rump of Tory councillors representing Calderdale doing everything possible to delay and obstruct the introduction of comprehensive education in Calderdale.
It was thought that comprehensive education would be achieved shortly after local government reorganisation in 1974. Comprehensive schemes were carefully prepared. Those plans were fully supported by the then Labour-controlled Calderdale Council, which also enjoyed the unanimous support of the education committee.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How can the "Puddleworth Council" or the "Upper Lauderdale Council" have anything to do with the guillotine motion that is now before us? The question whether the motion should be carried has nothing to do with the general principles of comprehensive schooling. We are dealing only with whether discussion of the provisions of the Bill should be curtailed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising that point of order. I share his point of view to some extent in regard to some of the speeches made on the motion, particularly that of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), which in my opinion have gone into far too much detail on the subject of comprehensive education. This debate is concerned with the question of the guillotine. Many hon. Members are anticipating tomorrow's debate. That is the occasion when these other arguments should take place.

Mr. Madden: I take note of your remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I also note a growing hostility among Conservatives to any reference to areas north of Acton. I am attempting to trace in some detail the need for the Bill and the guillotine. My constituents are anxiously awaiting the introduction of comprehensive education for the benefit of their children, and the area—[Interruption.] I shall not be shouted down by Opposition Members, who seek only to delay and obstruct comprehensive education.
The education committee which devised the comprehensive scheme in Calderdale at that time was composed of Labour, Conservative and Liberal councillors. That scheme also had the solid backing of parents and teachers in the area. Then came May 1975, when the Tories gained control of Calderdale Council. A small clique of hard-line, doctrinaire Tories set about halting the advance of comprehensive education—

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To revert to the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), surely the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) is totally out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Total out-of-orderliness was shared by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee).

Mr. Madden: Since that fateful day, the children, parents and teachers of Calderdale, anxious for comprehensive education to be introduced, have witnessed a display of ducking and weaving, twisting and turning by a rump of Calder-dale Tory councillors on comprehensives that makes Muhammad Ali look like an elephant.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Obviously the hon. Gentleman has issued this statement to his local paper, but will he acknowledge that in the replies he has been given recently by his own Government's Ministers it was acknowledged that in his Tory-controlled area there have been clear moves towards reorganisation in a sensible and practical way and that money has been applied for and granted?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us try to get the debate back to dealing with the guillotine motion. I think that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) has gone deeply enough into his local situation.

Mr. Madden: Warming to your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall ignore the comments made by the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson). The Conservatives have resorted to every trick in the book to obstruct and delay comprehensive education in the hope, distant though it may be, of Mrs. Thatcher crossing the threshold—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to refer to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, he should do so in those terms.

Mr. Madden: In the distant hope of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition crossing the threshold of No. 10 Downing Street, the Calderdale councillors think that they can throw the comprehensive scheme, so carefully prepared, out of the window.
If the Tories of Calderdale do not come to their senses, I trust that this Bill will be the means of giving the people of Calderdale the comprehensive education they have awaited for so long. The parents, teachers, and governors of schools in Calderdale are anxious, as they have been waiting for comprehensive education.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member is going just a bit too far. If he has any further remarks to make he should come to the question of the guillotine. He is discussing a purely local matter.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: On a point of order and for general guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The guillotine motion proposes a timetable for discussion of a Bill, and that is the Education Bill. Does it not seem appropriate to draw on a specific constituency sample, because that is one of the best ways of illustrating that the guillotine motion is needed to secure a guarantee that the Bill will be completed?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) may not have been listening. The hon. Member for Sowerby kept on saying why he supported the Bill. We are discussing not the Bill but the motion.

Mr. Madden: I wish to express my support for the timetable motion because it is urgently necessary to get the Bill on to the statute book as quickly as possible. I am trying to show an example of the attitude of the modern Conservative Party to education in order to highlight the need for the guillotine motion.
I should like to emphasise the attitudes of the Tories of Calderdale in relation to the publication of Section 13 notices as

another reason for the Bill getting on to the statute book at the earliest opportunity. We have seen the delicate art of drafting and redrafting being used in delaying and obstructing the publication of Section 13 notices for the reorganisation of grammar schools at Sowerby Bridge and Todmorden in my constituency. We have seen other devices as well.

Mr. Jim Spicer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wished to speak about the problems which would arise in my constituency on the doubling of the register of those who would need housing as a result of the Government's motion, which would result in agricultural workers going on to the register. That falls into exactly the same category as the speech of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden). I have stood down because I believed that that would not be within the purpose of the proceedings. What we are hearing from the hon. Member for Sowerby falls into that category, and I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will rule accordingly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Sowerby has said that he will respect the wishes of the Chair. I remind him that he is not in an Adjournment debate dealing with a local matter.

Mr. Madden: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it must be pointed out to the official Opposition that there are within my area a number of Conservative councillors who are at great odds.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am asking the hon. Member for Sowerby please to respect the wishes of the Chair. He will agree that what I have said is absolutely in order.

Mr. Madden: I was citing those individuals because they are anxious, as I am, to see the motion carried so that the Education Bill can be put on to the statute book. The Conservative councillors who represent the areas concerned wish to see comprehensive education introduced, and they resent very much the reactionary and doctrinaire attitudes of the majority of the controlling Conservative group in acting in a way which is contrary to the wishes of enlightened Conservative councillors who wish to see comprehensive education introduced.

Mr. Toby Jessel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman is clearly in difficulty, would it be possible to come to his aid by suggesting that he should merely issue a statement to his local newspaper rather than subject the House to this parish pump diatribe?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take it that the hon. Member for Sowerby is now concluding his speech.

Mr. Madden: I hope that my constituents, of all political parties, will have witnessed the tirade of futile opposition that my remarks have aroused on the Opposition Benches tonight, the blatant hostility that we see time and again to all matters that concern the North, and the hostility that has been expressed by the leading spokesman for the Opposition against educational institutions in the area. I hope that they will also have witnessed the futile opposition that has been expressed against the Bill.
I wish to see this timetable motion carried and the Education Bill established on the statute book in the interests of my constituents who have been waiting since 1966 for comprehensive education to come to their area.

12.22 a.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Although it may not be entirely apparent, the debate is about a timetable motion on the Rent (Agriculture) and Education Bills. It seems to me that some—not all—Members on the Government side have not read the motion or considered what it is about.
The question is not whether we are in favour of the Bills concerned but whether it is reasonable to take two Bills together in the one motion, to consider five Bills on one day and to deal with the matter by this procedure. That question concerns not only Opposition parties but Labour Back Benchers. I suspect from what has been said that some hon. Gentlemen opposite have not read the terms of the motion and are therefore not aware of the restrictions that it places upon them.
The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) indicated that he knew what this matter was all about. I think he should think a little more carefully and realise that he may have cause to vote

against the motion. If he cannot rely on his hon. Friends, others must do so, because it is clear that they also will be subject to clear restrictions. Therefore, they must consider those restrictions. They must appreciate that at the end of the day, when the time is up, none of their amendments will be put to the vote, unless one of their hon. Friends on the Front Bench decides to move it. If there is the degree of disagreement indicated by the hon. Member for Dudley, West in his relations with his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Harper), I suspect that the Government will not feel disposed to move any amendment that he may table on the subject. There will also be other sources of disagreement, because the timetable motion will not permit amendments tabled by other hon. Gentlemen to be discussed.
We are talking of the opportunity to allow reasonable discussion of measures before Parliament and not about whether we agree with them. I say that with some feeling, because we are talking about two measures that the Liberal Party supports in principle. I do not dissent from the Government in their desire to obtain measures in these five areas. We have sought to make amendments to them, which we may wish to support at a later stage, but we must stick to the question whether the procedure for dealing with those measures is fair and reasonable.
We are discussing two Bills between which there is no connection. That point must be established at the start. They are entirely unconnected Bills. The precedents suggest not that we should adopt this procedure but that these Bills should be dealt with separately. Indeed, these Bills have been subject to different treatment hitherto in the House.
I should like to deal first with the Education Bill, because I must disagree with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). It would be difficult for any objective observer not to say that the Conservatives, in their deep opposition to the Bill, had used the time at their disposal to secure that the Bill did not go through the House. I regard what they did as filibustering. That may be in no way improper, but the Government would be right to suppose that any time they made available would be fully used by the


Opposition to prevent the Bill going through.

Dr. Hampson: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was not the Liberal Party spokesman on education at the time, but does he accept that at no point in Committee did the Government accept, admit or say that the Opposition were filibustering? Indeed, there was continuous contact between my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and the Minister of State night after night agreeing that the sitting should close at 7 o'clock. Therefore, we did not have long, extended business in Committee. We even agreed to curtail our arguments so that the final day finished at half-past seven.

Mr. Beith: The Government's willingness to pack up early on this Bill has surprised me on several occasions, on the Floor of the House as well as in Committee.

Mr. Ronald Bell: What is more relevant is that on the three days of Report stage on the Bill the debate was evenly balanced between both sides of the House. It was not a case of the Opposition taking up all the time. The Government's supporters also contributed. There are so many ex-teachers on the Labour Benches that they cannot keep them quiet.

Mr. Beith: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. Hon. Members in the official Opposition were fairly well prepared and organised to contribute extensively to the debates, but Labour Members could not hold themselves back. That is another reason why the Government find themselves in difficulty. They should have considered a reasonable timetable motion a great deal sooner on this Bill. They should have discussed this with all parties in the House and come to some arrangement.
When one compares the Education Bill with the Rent (Agriculture) Bill, the lumping of the two measures together is extraordinarily puzzling. The Rent (Agriculture) Bill has been the subject of 12 Committee sittings. At the end of those sittings the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) said, on behalf of the Government, that he was grateful for the constructive way the Committee had tackled the important

issues at stake. The Opposition spokesman claimed that the Opposition and the Government were at one in that regard. This happy spirit of accord indicated that there was not the slightest evidence of filibustering or prolonging debates more than was reasonable in the circumstances. I have seen no evidence anywhere of any filibustering on the Bill or any evidence that there was any intention to carry out such a filibuster.

Mr. Rees-Davies: In furtherance of what the hon. Member has said, may I remind him also that the Bill was debated only in the mornings? The Government did not seek to debate it in the afternoon or the evenings because we gave a clear undertaking that we would let them have it in reasonable time. It was also agreed that reasonable time would be given for Report and Third Reading.

Mr. Beith: I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement. The Government have not seen fit since then to suggest that there was any attempt on the Opposition's part to obstruct this measure by unreasonably prolonging the debate. That is certainly not the intention of my hon. Friends and myself.
The suggestion that consideration and Third Reading of the Bill should be limited to only one day is blatantly absurd. It will stifle reasonable and open debate on a number of important issues arising from the Bill. On the Notice Paper today there are two new clauses, one new schedule and no fewer than 160 amendments to debate. Over 100 of them are Government amendments. Some are sensible, others are more controversial. But there is clear evidence that there are amendments tabled by other hon. Members who deeply desire to improve the Bill.
My party has one amendment down, and it is crucial to the heart of the Bill. The issue is that of the nature of the obligation of a local authority to rehouse. It comes at a late stage in the Bill, and it may well be that we shall be prevented from discussing that part of the Bill. As the time runs out, any amendment we might table, and certainly those that my hon. Friends and I have already tabled, will not be put to the vote. The only amendments to be voted upon will be Government amendments. If we cannot have a serious debate on the


crucial question of the obligation on local authorities to rehouse, I do not see how my right hon. and hon. Friends can vote on Third Reading for a Bill which they would otherwise support in principle.
The Government must give a reasonable timetable for a Bill for which there is agreement in principle between my party and theirs. To agree with the Bill and to adjudicate on the timetable for it are two totally different things. I am worried most at the implication that it one wants a Bill one must wholly and unreservedly support any timetable motion that the Government put down, however much it might restrict the rights of the Opposition or Government Back Benchers to discuss it. If we do not decide now to separate those two aspects, we may find ourselves unable to debate measures forced upon us by a future Government that Labour Members may like a great deal less than they like this one.
We must safeguard the rights of the House and we should pay more attention to that than to particular Bills. I am anxious to see those Bills debated properly and adequately. A motion grouping together two Bills to which completely different considerations apply does not provide adequate opportunity for debate.

12.32 a.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: Perhaps I may be the first to congratulate the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on assuming responsibility as Liberal spokesman on education. We shall all miss the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), without whose interventions and wit the proceedings on the Bill would have been almost unbearable. We welcome the hon. Member to the secret garden of education and we hope that he will be very happy here.
I agree with the hon. Member that the Education Bill should have been guillotined before Easter. It was quite clear after about half an hour of the Committee that the Opposition's sole purpose was to filibuster and not to put forward reasonable arguments on the Bill. I was in a particularly fortunate position to observe these scenes, since as a PPS I was in what the Greeks in their dramas called a —I was a silent character simply watching the proceedings.
To give just one or two examples of the patent filibuster on the Bill, I furnished myself with the two massive volumes of the Committee's proceedings and turned up a certain number of pages at random. It might be interesting for the House to hear the sort of filibustering that took place in Committee.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Would it not be better for the hon. Gentleman to direct his remarks to the Report stage as the Committee was completed, in the end, by agreement?

Mr. Price: If the hon. Gentleman had served with us on the Committee, he would not make such remarks.
Let us consider some of the filibustering. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) said:
At one time I tried the long jump, not very successfully I must confess until my mathematics master pointed out the sort of are I must jump if I was to succeed. The very build-up that we had made it more likely, scientifically and mathematically, that one would succeed in one particular athletic skill as against another. It was the beginning of my interest in some branches of mathematics, and certainly in angles, when I found that I really had to run up and jump at a particular angle. One ran, as it were, with the protractor alongside, knowing that in many cases the long jump depended on height and not length."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 11th March 1976; c. 435.]
That is a random example.
The Opposition's obsession with the perfect social system that they seemed to imagine existed in the USSR fascinated me. It is not a social system that I would wish to imitate, but the Opposition seemed to regard it as an absolute Nirvana. The hon. Member for Brent, North read from what was said by the vice-president of the executive committee of the Novosibirsk City Soviet of Working People's Deputies:
The territory of the USSR was divided into four zones. The zone of our Novosibirsk school covers Siberia, the Far East, Kazakhstan and Central Asia.
I do not want to concentrate too much on the hon. Member for Brent, North since he is clearly a special case and the filibustering was not confined to him.
Many memories were recalled in Committee, and the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) said:
I remember when I was at public school from the age of 13 to 18 there was a boy


who was incredibly successful by any stretch of the imagination. He was academically brilliant. He was captain of the school. He was brilliantly good at games. He was captain of the soccer XI, captain of the rugger XV, he was keeper of athletics, he won the school steeplechase when he was 15, 16 and 17, he was the president of the debating society, he the president of the literary society, he was the was the president of the political society. In every way he was incredibly successful."— [Official Report, Standing Committee, 18th March 1976; c. 595.]
I think that the point the hon. Gentleman was trying to make was that that character was not the hon. Member for City of Chester. He went on in that vein. [Interruption.]
As the hon. Member for Brent, North appears to think that I should return to him, perhaps I should quote another of his contributions to a serious debate on the "meat" of the Bill. He said:
I remember"—
here it comes again—
that in the Sunday school to which I went as a boy, in an area which is now represented by an hon. Gentleman opposite"—
I think that that was a reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble)—
there was a game played at harvest time whereby a drawing of a donkey was put on a wall and people were blindfolded—after they had had their apples and oranges and the enjoyment of the harvest—and given the donkey's tail. This is quite a pleasant game, and one that I can commend to all. The tail had a drawing pin through it and the participants had to cross the floor, arrive at the donkey blindfolded and put the tail where they thought the tail of the donkey should go.
I accept that most of us when not blindfolded know where the tail of the donkey should go. Unblindfolded men generally agree about which end of the donkey is the tail. It should be on one particular end, which simplifies the matter. But the blindfolding meant that one did not know which end of the donkey was which, and the excitement of the game—which would go on for hours … —would lie in seeing where people put the tail of the donkey. The donkey finished up with many tails in different areas."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 1st April 1976; c. 994.]
I shall not continue any further with the quotation as I realise that I should be trespassing on the time of the House.
When the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) constantly insists that there has been no suggestion of any filibustering, it is important that the Committee report be read. I willingly offer the report to any of my

hon. Friends who wish to participate in the debate. They will find many more gems.
I now answer some of the serious points made by Opposition Members. One serious point was made by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), whom I think everyone on this side of the House respects. It is a very great shame that, because of the bigotry and extremism of the Opposition, he is not the spokesman for education, as he properly ought to be because of his wide and wise experience in the Department of Education.
The hon. Member suggested, as did the hon. Member for Chelmsford, that it was because the Bill was not in the spirit of the 1944 Education Act, because it was a massive change, that it was absolutely wrong that it should be guillotined. He was quite wrong about that. This Bill—and I had some small hand in drafting it with loving care—was very carefully drafted to be exactly in the spirit of the 1944 Act. The responsibility that it lays on local eduaction authorities are exactly measured by the responsibilities that it lays upon the voluntary schools, and it has held the balance of the 1944 Act exactly. The argument that the Bill is tremendously controversial does not stand up in any way.
The truth is that the sound and fury that we have heard from the Opposition during this debate have been simply to conceal the massive split in the Opposition about how to approach the principles of this comprehensive Bill. The hon. Member for Wokingham, in that rather pious manner for which he is so well known—I hope he will excuse me for saying that—said "Let no one try to drive a wedge between me and the Conservative Party." It is not necessary. As my hon. Friends remind me, one cannot drive a wedge into the Grand Canyon—it would disappear into the bottom without trace.
There is a massive split in the Opposition about comprehensive education. They try to get over it by pretending that grammar schools and comprehensives can exist side by side. They face motions like this guillotine motion with a great deal of shouting, but in Committee and on Report all we had was a great deal of filibustering. One can find as much trivial nonsense on


Report as in Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us."] I appreciate that some Opposition Members want to say something, and I want to leave them a little time.
Never since the Second World War has a Bill more deserved guillotining. Never has a Bill been more trivially filibustered than this Education Bill through its Committee stage and on Report. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Chelmsford—["HON. MEMBERS:" Where is he?"] I do not know where he is. No doubt he is doing the sort of things he constantly did when he was begging us to let him have a pair or to pack up the Committee stage for the evening—he had very important engagements at the opera and naturally could not possibly sit beyond 7 o'clock on certain days. There was another occasion, to which the hon. Member was good enough to refer, when an archbishop of his faith required consecrating. Clearly his absence on that occasion we quite understood.
There were many occasions when we had to pack up early in Committee, but the occasions were just as often brought about by the quite reasonable desires of Conservative Members to be about their important, usually ecclesiastical business as there was any desire on our side of the Committee to wrap up early and go home.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is making his case based upon a filibuster upstairs in the Education Bill Committee and is saying that he can introduce evidence afterwards. Has he considered at all the other Bill, upon which it is not suggested that there has been any filibuster, upon which there was less than 30 hours' debate and upon which no Conservative Member has been able to speak or say one solitary word because this debate has been entirely a universal educational debate? No Conservative Member has been called to speak one single solitary syllable on it whatsoever. Would not the hon. Gentleman concede, that, unless there is some evidence of undue delay at the very least, it would be quite improper to introduce a guillotine in respect of a measure which was debated only in the mornings and on which such an introduction is not necessary?

Mr. Price: I bow to the hon. and learned Gentleman's expertise in filibustering which I cannot possibly measure up to. I must plead on this occasion, and perhaps I might do it in Latin since most of the Education Bill Committee business has been in Latin, quoting the immortal words of Virgil, "Quisque suos patimur manes", which means that we each have to undergo our private trials. Mine was the Education Bill and not the Bill concerned with tied cottages. I leave it to my hon. Friends, who are more expert in these matters, to talk about tied cottages.
I could go on but I conclude by saying that never has a Bill deserved a guillotine more, and never will I have voted with a greater will than when I go into the Lobby tonight to vote for this timetable motion in respect of the Education Bill.

Mr. Rees-Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is intended as I understand it, to be a debate upon two separate guillotines. One concerns the Education Bill and the other is in respect of the Rent (Agriculture) Bill. I would point out that not one speaker has been called from the Conservative Benches to deal with the position in relation to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill. It was a Bill which was not criticised as being a cause of any delay. Is no Conservative hon. Member to be called?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can put the hon. and learned Member's mind at rest immediately. Mr. Charles Morrison.

12.54 a.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: After the earlier and constructive part of the speech by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), I thought that there was a reasonable chance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that your eye might next alight upon me. I wonder whether you can confirm that we are debating the motion entitled
Rent (Agricultural) Bill and Education Bill (Allocation of Time)".
I think that is correct, is it not?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Deputy Speaker indicated assent.

Mr. Morrison: In fact, no such Bill as the Rent (Agricultural) Bill has actually been before the House. I suppose we have to accept the sloppiness of the


Leader of the House in not drafting his motion correctly, because the Bill that I and some of my hon. Friends have been concerned with has been entitled the Rent (Agriculture) Bill. But I suppose that we shall have to put up with that sort of incompetence by the Leader of the House.
Would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, cast your eye along the Government Front Bench and be so kind as to indicate whether you can spot there, or whether you have been able to spot in the debate, a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture? I think you will agree with me that until this moment there has not been a Minister from that Department present. That demonstrates yet again the scorn, arrogance and lack of respect that the Government have for the agriculture industry. The Parliamentary Secretary has been sitting on the second Bench for about 10 minutes, which perhaps emphasises his own embarrassment and shyness about the Rent (Agriculture) Bill.
There is no argument for a guillotine on the Rent (Agriculture) Bill. We had only 12 sittings in Committee. There were no sittings outside the normal Tuesday and Thursday mornings. We sat for less than 30 hours, and in that time we dealt with 42 clauses and 8 schedules. It is remarkable that we got through the Bill in that incredibly short time. There was no filibustering or any complaint of it. There were no long speeches. Even the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) managed to contain herself, which must have taken a great deal of doing. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), representing the Liberal Party, hardly got into top gear and was certainly not as revved up as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) became tonight. The Opposition in Committee on that Bill were responsible. Given the lack of flexibility by the Government, some might think that we were too responsible.
The reality is that there are two reasons for the guillotine. The first is incompetence and the second embarrassment. The incompetence is that of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), who should perhaps no longer be honoured with the title "Leader of the House"—the great parliamentarian turned great dictator, the

oratorical jewel who has proved no more than superficial, the sham democrat. When next, and very soon, he once more finds himself in Opposition, there will be no need for anyone to fear or respect his words because they will be no more than a meaningless facade, just as they have been so often in Government. It was the right hon. Gentleman's incompetence, with that of his predecessor, which ensured that the Bill came forward far too late in the Session. That is the basic reason why the Government are introducing the guillotine. They have mismanaged their business.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does not my hon. Friend agree that one of the glaring omissions from the opening speech by the Secretary of State for Education and Science was any argument in favour of the guillotine for the Rent (Agriculture) Bill? The right hon. Gentleman advanced no cause why that Bill should be guillotined. Does it not make it difficult for the many hon. Members on this side of the House who wish to do so to put an argument to the Government when the Government themselves have not presented any argument for the guillotine?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is right. But the reason why the right hon. Gentleman did not produce any arguments is that there is none to present for the Government's case.

Mr. Mulley: If the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) had not been shouting almost continuously from a sitting position when I was speaking, he might have heard the reasons I gave.

Mr. Morrison: I do not think I was wise to give way to the Secretary of State.
The second reason for the guillotine is embarrassment. That is the embarrassment of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Because of statements which he made outside the House before and during the course of the Committee stage, he was open to criticism for deceit and hypocrisy if he refused to allow amendments to be made to Clause 29. He did not allow such amendments and the criticism is, therefore, upheld. The only way in which to reduce his embarrassment is to cut the time for debate on Report and Third Reading.
On numerous occasions the Government have said that the Bill will have no effect of the farming or agriculture industry. Farmers and others in the industry believe otherwise. Indeed, what point is there in the Bill if it will have no effect. The reality is that if the Bill is enacted it can easily change the pattern of British agriculture over a period of time. I believe that it will. Not only will it effect food production, but it will reduce employment in the industry, particularly because of its effect on the livestock sector. On the day when we have heard figures revealing the highest unemployment rate since the war, the Labour Government are setting out to add to it still further. It is a disgrace that we should be asked to vote on the guillotine motion. It proves once again that the Government are determined to make this Paliament a farce.

1.3 a.m.

Miss Joan Maynard: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) says that we have given no reason for the guillotine. That is because the reason is self-evident. It is self-evident that the Bill is of great importance to a group of workers who have been waiting so long for action. If any Bill was entitled to the guillotine it is this one.
The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) referred to the number of hours spent in Committee. That is not the point at issue. The point at issue is the time that farm workers have waited for the measure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) complained that he was not selected to sit on the Committee on the Bill. He said that he was probably the only farmer on the Government side. I assure him that the farmers' view was not lacking on that Committee—it was put from the Opposition side.
Farm workers have waited 31 years for the Labour Party to take action, because we have been promising to introduce such a Bill since 1945. Because of that long wait, they have suffered great inhumanity through the tied cottage system. If a man lost his job for any reason—because of a disagreement with his employer, or because he was too ill to work, perhaps after an accident—he lost his home. I can relate many cases of men who became

ill, carried on working and eventually died, whose widows were immediately faced with the farmer demanding his cottage back. I am surprised that anyone can defend this inhuman system, but Conservatives have been defending it for many years. Now the Government have decided to end it.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Does the hon Lady realise that we are discussing the question whether we should have one evening or two evenings for Report and Third Reading? After 31 years, surely one further evening to get the Bill right would not do agricultural workers any harm?

Miss Maynard: I do not think that there is any likelihood of getting the Bill wrong. I think that it is right in giving security of tenure to farm workers. Farmers have had security of tenure for many years. All that we are asking for is the same treatment for farm workers. I am glad that at last the Government, by deciding to guillotine the Bill, have recognised the importance of farm workers so that at long last they will have security of tenure and not lose their homes when they lose their jobs.

1.6 a.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) has put forward an outrageous argument. She says that because the Bill is important and the House has been waiting for it for many years it can be rushed through, with the guillotine applied.
I served on the Committee. I said that I would like to be a member because I am a lawyer and I wanted to help get the Bill right. In the past 20 years I have been dealing with farm cottages and similar problems. I am not standing at the next election. I am sure that the Minister will agree that I tried to be constructive throughout the Committee proceedings.
Some people say that lawyers talk too much, but I would point out that the Bill changes the rent law, and the Rent Acts are very complicated. We sat for a total of 30 hours—12 mornings of two and a half hours each. We never sat in the afternoon or evening, and there was never a complaint of filibustering. Now we find that the Minister has tabled 100 amendments—

Mr. Rees-Davies: There are 102 Government amendments, and we have tabled 59.

Mr. Awdry: My hon. and learned Friend counts better than I do.
We have to deal with those amendments between 4.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. on Thursday. The Liberals have an amendment that they wish to discuss, but we shall not reach it. The hon. Lady cannot be so confident that we have the Bill right that she does not want the Government amendments to be discussed. What is the us of producing a Bill, even if the House was waited 31 years for it, if it does not make sense, and contains injustices? What hope have practitioners of making it work in those circumstances?
This makes a mockery of the House. What is the point of our being on a Committee, reading the matter up, and studying amendments, if at the end of the day we are told that the Bill must be guillotined and rushed through for no apparent reason?
In fact, the Minister gave a reason. He said that we were running out of time, and that as this was an important Bill we must get it on the statute book. It is a very dangerous doctrine that this should be done because the Government got into difficulty with their programme. As a lawyer, I find it outrageous that we should be in this situation. The principle is bad. I have never before spoken in a guillotine debate, because often they are charades, but this is a serious issue. There is no excuse for guillotining this Bill.
I am certain that the Minister will not speak one word of criticism of the way in which we behaved in Committee. I hope that he will say, as he did at the time, that we were constructive and helpful throughout.

1.10 a.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: This subject is a matter of conflict. That there is conflict between the two parties is not unreasonable, but what is surprising is that the Opposition should express mock indignation about guillotine motions, as though the institution of Parliament can never change and adapt—as though this is the supreme shape for all legislative institutions. Many people in this House and a great many more outside tend to think that the way in which

we conduct our business is nothing short of absurd. A timetable motion is an exceedingly sensible addition to a Bill. In the view of many people here, a timetable motion would be very useful for every piece of legislation going through the House.
We know that it is a weapon of the Opposition to use time—to pour words out so that as time goes by they can try to get some sort of concession from the Government. But there is no degree of certainty that this will take place. The only sort of concession that occurs is in the case of a drafting amendment that obviously makes sense, and is acceptable. The Opposition have to accept that the conflict is between two political ideas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) complained about not being on the Committee on the Rent (Agriculture) Bill; and he is a farmer. Opposition Members who have farms and farming interests quite properly declared their intention. But the fact is that the Government side tend to represent the interests of employees, as opposed to those who hold land and capital. We cannot get rid of that basic conflict, no matter how long we talk. Pouring words into time, to give the Opposition satisfaction of feeling that they are doing some sort of opposition job, really brings Parliament into disrepute.
It seems to me far more sensible to have a timetable motion for the whole spectrum of legislation. When the Conservatives were in office, their Back Benchers were told—just as are those on the Government side today—to keep their mouths shut so as not to delay Bills going through. They were told that if they did not do so they would, in effect, be helping the Opposition.
The dividing line between simply delaying a matter and filibustering is fairly fine, and there is no doubt that in many Committees, certainly in the Committee on the Education Bill—the proceedings are something like a public school debating society. The idea is to have some decent fun, to string the Government along, and at the same time pursue the delusion of actually supporting some sort of political attitude.
That is not good enough in the twentieth century, when we are producing legislation that affects people.


Therefore it seems to me that if we had a timetable motion it would enable Government Back Benchers as well as the Opposition Front and Back Benchers, to play a much more effective role in debate.
The principle of a timetable motion is highly commendable as a general rule. It is not cutting down debate; it is making it more meaningful, cutting out the aeons of waffle that fill Hansard, page after page after page. Many speeches which take 45 minutes could be cut to 10 or 15 minutes and still contain the germ of what was intended.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: It is quite significant that there are no Members of the Scottish National Party here to take part in this debate, which is a very important one about the whole future of agricultural cottages and tied cottages in Scotland. None of them is here to participate in the debate. This is very important. What is happening is that we are having a debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is growing into a speech, and he has not caught the Chair's eye.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend's intervention was useful, although I am not sure in what context.
If we organised Parliament on the basis of a timetable—short debates for non-controversial legislation and long debates for controversial legislation—it would improve Parliament.
Members of the Opposition said that our glorious institution must not be changed. Tonight our glorious institution depends on the votes of two sick men brought in as a result of the petulant attitude of the Opposition, who, when they heard about the sensible introduction of a timetable motion said "We are not pairing." Apparently it does not matter that the Government cannot be represented at important meetings. It has become necessary even to bring in sick people who, for example, have suffered heart attacks. It is said that if those sick people were not here they would suffer great anxiety at home and that they would be as badly off there as in the House of Commons, as the Opposition are not prepared to be sufficiently tolerant to pair the sick. Once again,

Parliament must depend on the votes of the bedridden, who should be in hospital.

Mr. Beith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Chief Whip and his Chief Whip's predecessor refused to pair their sick members with members of my party, even when the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) was seriously ill? They have maintained that consistent refusal.

Mr. Cryer: Our pairing takes place with the major party. That is where our voting position must be maintained. Indeed, I see our Deputy Patronage Secretary discussing this. I do not wish to go into the side issue of the Liberals.
Immediately the guillotines were announced the Leader of the Opposition petulantly said that pairing was off, knowing full well that the business of the Government and international situations might well be seriously jeopardised by that attitude. Yet members of the Conservative Party talk about patriotism and the greatness of our country. They deliberately set out to undermine the position of the Government by their petulant and spiteful attitude.
The institutions represented in Parliament have room for improvement. The Government should examine seriously the framework used for putting through legislation. The Labour Party have a radical programme. In our manifesto we are committed to comprehensive education. Since 1945 we have been committed to the abolition of tied cottages. The abolition of tied cottages and the introduction of comprehensive education are opposed by members of the Opposition. They have every right to oppose, but they must recognise that behind their facade of concern for democracy they are seeking to wreck the Government's legislative programme. They have said so. By their response, that is the position that they are clearly indicating.
The Opposition do not seek extra debating time. They do not care a hoot for the clauses, the subsections, the "delete the aforesaids". They seek sufficient time to wreck the Government's legislative programme and to create a position in which the comprehensive education programme is halted and relief to agricultural employees is not given.
It was significant to note that in Committee all the Opposition amendments


were directed to assisting not the farm employee but the farm employer. The Opposition seemed to be concerned only with the interests of efficient agricultural production—but employees are important, too.

Mr. F. A. Burden: The hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition were intent on wrecking the Government's proposals. We understand that Labour Members below the Gangway are no less intent on wrecking many of the intentions of their own Government.

Mr. Cryer: That is a silly intervention. There is a difference between the constructive development of legislation and the simple, blind hatred of an Opposition. That is the fundamental conflict between the Opposition and the Government. Of course there are nuances and differences of view and emphasis within the Labour Government and Labour Party, but hon. Gentlemen opposite can draw no comfort from that. What they forget is that the attitudes and values that bind hon. Members on the Labour Benches are far stronger than the divisions that occur among us. We believe that in this context the timetable motion has an important role to play in seeking to defeat Opposition wrecking tactics. We believe that the Government have a reasonable right, subject to the scrutiny of Parliament, to get their legislation through. These timetable motions will enable that to be done.

Mr. William Hamilton: My hon. Friend was a member of the Committee, and I should like to have been a member of it, but I suspect that I was kept off by the Government and by the Patronage Secretary because I take a certain view about tied cottages on the royal estates. I should like my hon. Friend to tell me whether an amendment was tabled to provide for tied cottages on the royal estates to be included in the Bill—and if not, why not? I should also like to ask whether my hon. Friend and others thought fit to table such an amendment. I should hate to think that this guillotine procedure would prevent, first, the selection of such an amendment and, secondly, a debate and vote on the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very long intervention. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) was called upon not to address the House but merely to intervene.

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend had allowed me to intervene.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, in a short debate, is making a long intervention, and it is not fair to the rest of the House.

Mr. Hamilton: I am just asking my hon. Friend to give an assurance that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken at some length. Perhaps he will bring his intervention to a close.

Mr. Hamilton: I am about to do so, Mr. Speaker. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give an assurance that he has tabled an amendment to be debated when the time comes.

Mr. Cryer: That intervention perfectly illustrates my point. An amendment has been tabled to meet the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). I believe that the debate on that matter was not sufficiently lengthy. There have developed two points about the—

Mr. Hugh Rossi: Mr. Hugh Rossi (Hornsey) rose—

Mr. Cryer: Just a minute. I want to finish this sentence.

Mr. Canavan: Sit down, you silly man.

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We were under the impression that you were in the Chair. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) has already indicated that he thinks that these Bills apply to Scotland, when they do not. Now he is shouting vile remarks to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Speaker: The House will have noticed that my attention was distracted for a moment, but I hope there have been no offensive remarks. Mr. Cryer.

Mr. Cryer: On this Bill the Government had a majority in Committee because the Liberal representative voted not always but almost entirely with the Government side.
On one occasion one hon. Member spoke for almost 40 minutes on a clause, and at the end of it, one of his own side said
I wonder if my hon. Friend can tell me the difference between 'advice' and 'recommendation'
—the amendment was to delete "advice" and substitute "recommendation"—
We have come on to a purely semantic point. If I were to advise my hon. Friend to catch the 5·15 train if he wanted to come to dinner, or recommend him to catch the 5·15 train if he wanted to come to dinner, it seems to me to be exactly the same."—[Official Report, Standing Committee K, 17th June 1976; c. 390.]
In other words, there was an amendment which was admitted by an Opposition Member to be purely semantic, with no relevance to the development of the Bill. It was not uncharacteristic of the attitude of the Opposition to this legislation. They are not wholly obstructive, but—

Mr. Rossi: Does the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) agree that there were a number of clauses to which no amendments were put down? He will realise that if an Opposition wish to delay a Committee, it will seek to amend virtually every line in a Bill.

Mr. Cryer: I am willing to accept that some clauses were not subject to amendment, but the fact is that unless this Bill gets through in this Session, the provisions for agricultural workers will not be given legislative effect. The position in agriculture, in which the employee has always faced the possibility of misery and eviction, will still exist.
It surprises me that the Opposition are resisting a guillotine on the Bill. I would have thought they would want to get rid of the feudal image of agriculture, which is a modern and up-to-date industry. Let us get this legislation through and give agriculture the image it deserves.

1.29 a.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: First, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to help the House by advising us on the important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison), because if the motion were passed—I hope that it will not be—it would make nonsense. That is because there is not

a Rent (Agricultural) Bill. I sought to table an amendment to the Title but was advised that the title was not amendable. Will you therefore tell us what happens in the unfortunate event of the motion being passed?

Mr. Speaker: The Title of the Bill was correctly printed yesterday. It is clearly a printer's error. I have examined the text of the motion of which notice was given last week. The title was yesterday correctly described as the Rent (Agriculture) Bill. It appears correctly in the Order Paper that I have before me and that the House is discussing—not the Title, but the motion.

Mr. Pym: It seems unsatisfactory and unfortunate that the Title should not relate to a Bill that has been before the House, but at this hour of night perhaps I had better leave the matter there. It is not a very clever moment for a misprint of that kind.
Before I forget, I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
So far no case for a guillotine has been presented by the Government in relation to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill, and there is no case for me to answer. There was one sentence in the speech by the Secretary of State for Education and Science relating to it which in no way was a justification for a timetable motion or anything like it. Therefore, there is no case to answer.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Bright-side (Miss Maynard) said that it was self-evident, because farm workers had been waiting for the Bill for so long. That was supported by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). That amounts to dictatorial government, with Parliament not being consulted, and it is the end of the whole democratic arrangement. I imagine that that is what those two hon. Members and a number of their hon. Friends want. A general move in that direction and against Parliament lies behind the whole galaxy of guillotines that we are discussing.
I am sorry that I was not present when the Leader of the House made his opening speech, but, as he is not present to hear mine, perhaps that is not too important a matter—I see that he is here now.
I have heard that for his argument the right hon. Gentleman relied heavily on the number of hours that had been spent on some of these Bills, the number of sittings in Committee, and the time that had been consumed in the House.
In so far as there may be any argument in that sense for three or four of the Bills, that could not be said of the Rent (Agriculture) Bill. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman did not even mention that Bill. I do not think that the Deputy Chief Whip can advise him in any other sense while I am speaking about the speech made by the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman left it out because his argument on the other Bills could not conceivably apply to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill.
In the last debate the Secretary of State for Employment referred to the Dock Work Regulation Bill, the fact that there was a debate upon it in April 1975, that there was plenty of time for other discussion and consideration before Second Reading, and that there were a great many sittings in Committee. That does not apply to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science, in opening this debate—I do not see him now—referred to a debate on the principle of the Education Bill last autumn, the Second Reading last February, and the 85 hours in Committee. That argument does not apply to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill.
The first question that I want the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to consider when he replies—if he will spare me a moment to listen—is how he squares the arguments and comparisons that have been made about the time taken on the other Bills about which we have been talking with the Rent (Agriculture) Bill.
The Opposition feel that it is utterly wrong that the Rent (Agriculture) Bill should be included in today's orgy of guillotines. I remind the Leader of the House that the Second Reading took place on 4th May, which was very late if the Government thought it all that important. The Secretary of State for the Environment referred to the discussions that he had with the agriculture industry on the question of housing and the fact

that those discussions had been conducted in a spirit that lacked any rancour.
On Second Reading, I said:
The right hon. Gentleman said that they had taken place without rancour. I am sure that is true, for it is very much in the character and tradition of the industry. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was made without rancour, and I shall seek to do the same."—[Official Report, 4th May 1976; Vol. 910, c. 1080.]
All I can say is that the lack of rancour shown by the industry has not been reciprocated by the Government in bringing forward this timetable motion. I think that is the understatement of the year.
The Committee sat on 18th May, and the usual morning sittings motion was passed immediately, without debate. That was the only sittings motion throughout the Committee, which lasted for no more than 12 sittings. Progress through the Bill went along at the rate of three or four clauses per sitting—more on some days, fewer on others. That was obviously very good progress. There was no kind of obstruction. Indeed, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) quoted the words of the Under-Secretary of State about the constructive spirit in which that Committee stage was conducted.
That is markedly in contrast with what the Secretary of State for Employment said about the Dock Work Regulation Bill and its 36 sittings on 18 clauses. It also compares favourably with what happened on the Education Bill. In saying that, I am not defending the timetable motion in relation to the other Bills; I am saying that this Bill, particularly, should not be included. There is no shred of justification for including it, and none has been admitted by either the Leader of the House or by the Secretary of State for Education, who has miraculously disappeared from the House.
It would be entirely reasonable for the Leader of the House to allow the remaining stages of the Rent (Agriculture) Bill to take two days. That would be the most they could take. In fact, probably they could be achieved in one evening and a long night, but two days, at most, would be reasonable. The Leader of the House did not even try this; he just came forward with the guillotine, for which there was no justification at all.


The timetable motion in this case is a negation of Parliamentary sense, and an incitement to reasonable people to behave in an unreasonable way. [Interruption.] All the shouting and arguing from the Government Benches does not alter the situation. Those on the Labour Benches who have any twinge of conscience should realise that the House is being asked to do something entirely unreasonable.
It has been said that five timetable motions in one day is an insult, and no amount of talk about reform of parliamentary procedure changes that. This is a deliberate and calculated affront to Parliament, a denigration of Parliament, and a self-inflicted wound to the already ruined reputation of the Leader of the House.
I am entirely open-minded about reforms in this House, but I do not think that the Labour Party believes any more in the sort of Parliament that we believe in. Almost every previous timetable motion was rehearsed today, including double ones, but nothing remotely like the orgy that we are indulging in tonight has been revealed. To include the Rent (Agriculture) Bill in this orgy of timetables is totally unnecessary. It is greedy beyond description, and anti-democratic.
What about the revelation of the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps)? He is trying to have it all ways. Having said that he was in favour of the principle of the Bill, he was reported in the Press tonight as having taken action that is contrary to the spirit of the Bill, if it passes. He spoke on Second Reading, and asked to go on the Committee but was refused. I hope that after what he said tonight he will not go into the Lobby in support of the Government, because he cannot justify it.

Dr. Phipps: I am in favour of the principle of the Bill, but I do feel that farmers have not been afforded the amount of protection they should have. I made my position clear. I can bear with fortitude the fact that I was kept off the Committee, but I do think that there is no longer any independence of selection in the Committee of Selection.

Mr. Pym: That is a very good reason for the hon. Member not voting for his Government tonight. But this is the usual case of a Socialist saying one thing and doing another.
This is a very greedy motion. What other timetable motions have been tabled for a Bill with a normal Committee stage of 12 sittings only?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Many.

Mr. Pym: The Leader of the House says "Many". He should name them. In fact, I would like him to name just one.

Mr. Foot: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to at least 10 Bills that were guillotined by the Conservatives and that had had fewer sittings in a Session than this Bill has had.

Hon. Members: Name them.

Mr. Pym: The remarks of the Lord President last Thursday about the reason for the guillotine do not apply to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill, any more than what he said this afternoon applied to it. No precedent exists. The Government are trying to create one, but the one they are trying to create could mean the end of a sane parliamentary process of legislation. Why are the Government doing it? It is to pick up the time they lost through this own fault. They made a hash of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, and they should pay the price for that by dropping some other Bills. Instead they are trying to change the rules by imposing five timetable motions. They are trying to recover their lost time by the ruthless use of their parliamentary majority.
I do not believe that a majority of Labour Members think it right to bring the chopper down on the Rent (Agriculture) Bill. If that is so, and if they vote for the Government, it will be the most cynical expression yet of the attitude we have seen before of "We are the masters now". There are always arguments about particular timetable motions, but until now there has been a general agreement about the procedure for introducing them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a great deal of noise. The right hon. Gentleman must be listened to in reasonable silence.

Mr. Pym: The procedure has always been broadly agreed after discussions through the usual channels and with the


Select Committee on Procedure. That is not the position today. Nothing like what has happened today was ever contemplated by either party when the Standing Order was amended. No discussion took place about the possible misuse of the guillotine in this way. We appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that what is happening is in order, but the spirit of the arrangement and the sense of it are certainly being abused.
The Bill is controversial, but we have not obstructed it. It is proving much more difficult to alter existing arrangements for farm workers than Ministers realised. There are numerous complications in what is proposed. Whether or not hon. Members agree with the principle, we can surely all accept that if a change is to be made it must be done with the least pain and difficulty. We are dealing with families and with people, and we are leaning on local authorities in a new way. We are concerned with people's homes. Our debates have been wholly constructive.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) describe my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) as a hypocrite. I understand that to be unparliamentary language. I should be obliged if you would ask the hon. Member to withdraw his comment.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he described the right hon. Member as a hypocrite?

Mr. Flannery: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did, and I withdraw the word.

Mr. Pym: We have been seeking to improve the Bill and we now find that the Government have tabled more than 100 amendments. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside said that the Bill was all right. How can it be, when there are 100 Government amendments? On the time allocated, that will leave fewer than four minutes for each Government amendment, even if they are all discussed, which they will not be. There is also a new clause and a new schedule, which introduce an entirely new principle of phasing in rents. That was not discussed

in Committee. That should not come under the timetable motion.
The Secretary of State for Education said that there were no Government amendments on the Education Bill, but that is an absurd argument to put on this Bill, to which the Government have tabled 100 amendments.
There is not the shred of an excuse for what is happening tonight. It is a parliamentary disgrace, which could have been dreamed up only by people who would have no twinge of conscience in saying that black was white.
This is a black day for the House, and the Government apparently do not care a damn. I urge all hon. Members in all parts of the House to vote for what they know is right for the House and what it stands for. I urge hon. Members to support the amendment and throw out the motion.

1.46 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Whenever a timetable motion is debated in this House, we hear a great deal about the precedents. Today has proved no exception, however unusual it may be in other respects. In spite of that, I doubt whether many of those who sent us here are too concerned about the historical precedents for what we are doing.
I hope the House will understand when I say that I have no intention of exhuming from the parliamentary records elaborate examples of what some of our predecessors did in similar vein in the recent or more distant past. Instead, I simply want to say why I believe that the motion before the House is justified and why it represents a sensible way of proceeding.
My right hon. Friend made out a very strong case for limiting and ordering the time for further debate on the Education Bill. Nothing I have heard in the debate tonight has persuaded me that the Government have not allowed extremely extensive discussion on this important measure.
We heard hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Benches argue that the Education Bill and the Rent (Agriculture) Bill have no place together in tonight's motion. The answer to that is very simple. The Government's view has been that, for the convenience of the House,


consideration of our proposals for the timetables should be taken on one day. Therefore, the five Bills in question are the subject of three motions, observing the precedent that not more than two Bills should be coupled in any one motion and allowing nine hours' debate on the proposals.
I listened with interest to most of the speeches made in the past nine hours. Neither the time allotted to any debate nor the length of any speeches is a reasonable indicator of the value of their contribution to a measure that will eventually arrive on the statute book.
Marathon sittings are not the best way to give consideration to major Bills, and it is no wonder that many of our constituents regard it as an extremely odd way of conducting parliamentary business and cannot understand why we work such unreasonable hours.
I would not argue, of course, that the coupling of the two Bills that we are now discussing is dictated by similarity of content. As I have said, however, my right hon. Friend has shown that very full discussion has taken place on the Education Bill and that it is now time for it to make progress. I shall explain why I think that the same case applies to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill. In my view, it is in this respect that the Bills resemble each other, and I see nothing amiss in their being the subject of a single motion.
It is true that the Rent (Agriculture) Bill, abolishing the agricultural tied cottage system, has had a rather different parliamentary career from that of the Education Bill. We had a constructive Second Reading debate shortly after the Easter Recess, and during our 12 sittings upstairs both sides of the Committee had ample opportunity to put their views on all parts of the Bill. There was no pressure from the Government side to rush ahead without proper examination of the issues. Equally, I acknowledge that there was no undue prevarication or time-wasting from the Opposition.
Now we are back on the Floor of the House and, as usual at this time of year, we find ourselves in a difficult parliamentary situation. Everyone complains about the volume of legislation going through the House every year, but the House has to face reality. The demands on the

Government to do this, that and the other continue to grow. Governments are expected to intervene in various areas of community life in a way that would have seemed unthinkable in the early days of this century. The pressure on the legislative timetable is growing under all Governments, whatever their political complexion.
I suppose it can be argued—

Mr. Rossi: Mr. Rossi rose—

Mr. Armstrong: I do not have time to give way. I believe it will be recognised that 99 times out of 100 I give way to Opposition Members, but the Government have been criticised from all parts of the House for not dealing with the Rent (Agriculture) Bill and I am given 10 minutes to deal with it. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not give way.
I suppose it can be argued that if we had managed to introduce the Bill earlier in the Session it might well not have formed part of tonight's motion. I remind the House of the main reasons for the timing of this important Bill. As the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) was kind enough to acknowledge on Second Reading, the Bill is not the doctrinaire measure that it was alleged to be, but a genuine attempt to balance the right of the farm worker to security of tenure in his home with the need of the farmer to run his farm efficiently.
It was preceded, as was also acknowledged on Second Reading, by a very full consultative document, which was sent to and considered by several hundred local authorities and interested organisations. That process began a year ago, and we had to take time to consider the response. Those are the reasons for the timing of the Bill.
That has brought us to our present situation. The right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition has cut off the normal channels and promised all-out opposition on all occasions, and to leave out this important Bill from the procedures that we have proposed for the other four Bills would expose it to any small group of Opposition Members whose sole object would be to harass the Government and to subject the Bill to unacceptable delay.

Mr. Rossi: Give us the reason.

Mr. Armstrong: I am giving the hon. Gentleman the reason. My colleagues and I are convinced that we are right to ensure that after Report and Third Reading the Bill should be sped on its way to another place.

Mr. Rossi: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How can the House consider 160 amendments properly in 390 minutes? In any event the majority of the amendments are tabled by the Government. How can we give proper consideration to a measure of that sort?

Mr. Armstrong: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am coming to that very point.
The House is surely well aware that the number of amendments is of little significance. Anybody who has studied the Order Paper carefully will see that the Government amendments fall into 43 groups and that not one of them represents a policy departure. Fifteen groups deal with undertakings given in Committee and another 15 are purely technical, while eight are designed to simplify or clarify the effect of the provisions and four close minor loopholes.
I have not so far discussed the merits of the Bill because that is not what the motion is about. I utterly reject the notion, culled from one or two minute and unrepresentative surveys, that the Bill is not wanted by farm workers. We have every constitutional right to honour our pledges to the electorate and to do so as long as we command a majority in the Lobby.
But the final judgment on what we are doing will not be made in the Lobbies; it will be pronounced by people outside.

Sir John Rodgers: Sit down.

Division No. 263.]
AYES
[1.59 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Biffen, John
Bryan, Sir Paul


Aitken, Jonathan
Biggs-Davison, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Alison, Michael
Blaker, Peter
Buck, Antony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Body, Richard
Budgen, Nick


Arnold, Tom
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Bulmer, Esmond


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bottomley, Peter
Burden, F. A.


Awdry, Daniel
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Baker, Kenneth
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Carlisle, Mark


Banks, Robert
Bradford, Rev Robert
Carson, John


Beith, A. J.
Braine, Sir Bernard
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Bell, Ronald
Brittan, Leon
Channon, Paul


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Churchill, W. S.


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Brotherton, Michael
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clark, William (Croydon S)

Mr. Armstrong: It is interesting that the hon. Member, who has only recently come into the Chamber and who has not been here all day, should now shout from a sedentary position "Sit down".

Sir John Rodgers: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister is not giving way, the hon. Member must resume his seat.

Sir John Rodgers: As he has now given way, I want to point out that I was in the Chamber long before he started this ridiculous speech of his.

Mr. Armstrong: These two measures, the abolition of selection for secondary education and the long-overdue recognition that farm workers have the same rights to security of tenure as those that most of us have enjoyed for many years—the separation of their rights to a home from their conditions of work—were spelt out in the Labour Party manifesto. We believe that they are in the best interests of our people and we are content to be judged by them. I therefore ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby and in asking the House to receive this timetable motion, which will enable the Government, in a proper and considered way, to help these Bills on their way to the statute book, so that the pledges that we gave and explained at the election can be honoured.
A great deal has been said today about procedures in this House. At the week-end—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of them pursuant to Standing Order No. 44 (Allocation of time to Bills).

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 306.

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
James, David
Prior, Rt Hon James


Clegg, Walter
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Cockcroft, John
Jessel, Toby
Raison, Timothy


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rathbone, Tim


Cope, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cordle, John H.
Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Cormack, Patrick
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rees-Dovies, W. R.


Costain, A. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Critchley, Julian
Kellett, Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Crouch, David
Kershaw, Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Crowder, F. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridsdale, Julian


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kirk, Sir Peter
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Drayson, Burnaby
Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Knox, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dunlop, John
Lamont, Norman
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Durant, Tony
Lane, David
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Dykes, Hugh
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Ivan
Royle, Sir Anthony


Elliott, Sir William
Lawson, Nigel
Sainsbury, Tim


Emery, Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Ian
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fairgrieve, Russell
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Farr, John
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fell, Anthony
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Colin


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McCusker, H.
Shersby, Michael


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macfarlane, Nell
Silvester, Fred


Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, John
Sims, Roger


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sinclair, Sir George


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Freud, Clement
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fry, Peter
Madel, David
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Speed, Keith


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spence, John


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marten, Neil
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Gilmour, sir John(East Fife)
Mather, Carol
Sproat, lain


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maude, Angus
Stainton, Keith


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stanbrook, Ivor


Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray
Stanley, John


Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mayhew, Patrick
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Gorst, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stokes, John


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mills, Peter
Stradling Thomas, J.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Miscampbell, Norman
Tapsell, Peter


Gray, Hamish
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Griffiths. Eldon
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Molyneaux, James
Tebbit, Norman


Grist, Ian
Monro, Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter



Montgomery, Fergus
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Grylls, Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Hall, Sir John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan, Geraint
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Trotter, Neville


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hannam, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mudd, David
Viggers, Peter


Hastings, Stephen
Neave, Alrey
Wakeham, John


Havers, Sir Michael
Nelson, Anthony
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hawkins, Paul
Neubert, Michael
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Hayhoe, Barney
Newton, Tony
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Normanton, Tom
Wall, Patrick


Heseltine. Michael
Nott, John
Walters, Dennis


Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley
Warren, Kenneth


Higgins, Terence L.
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Weatherill, Bernard


Holland, Philip
Osborn, John
Wells, John


Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow West)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wiggin, Jerry


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pardoe, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Parkinson, Cecil
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Penhaligon, David
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Percival, Ian
Younger, Hon George


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Peyton, Rt Hon John



Hurd, Douglas
Pink, R. Bonner
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Mr. W. Benyon and


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Jim Lester.







NOES


Abse, Leo
Ennals, David
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Allaun, Frank
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Hugh


Anderson, Donald
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Archer, Peter
Evans, John (Newton)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Armstrong, Ernest
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Ashley, Jack
Faulds, Andrew
MacKenzie, Gregor


Ashton, Joe
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mackintosh, John P.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert


Atkinson, Norman
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Flannery, Martin
McNamara, Kevin


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Madden, Max


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Magee, Bryan


Bates, Alf
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Bean, R. E.
Ford, Ben
Mahon, Simon


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Forrester, John
Mallalleu, J. P. W.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marks, Kenneth


Bidwell, Sydney
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marquand, David


Bishop, E. S.
Freeson, Reginald
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Boardman, H.
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
George, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Gilbert, Dr John
Meacher, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Ginsburg, David
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Golding, John
Mendelson, John


Bradley, Tom
Gould, Bryan
Mikardo, Ian


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Graham, Ted
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Grant. John (Islington C)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Buchan, Norman
Grocott, Bruce
Moonman, Eric


Buchanan, Richard
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hardy, Peter
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hart. Rt Hon Judith
Moyle, Roland


Campbell, Ian
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Canavan, Dennis
Hatton, Frank
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Cant, R. B.
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Newens, Stanley


Carmichael, Neil
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Noble, Mike


Carter, Ray
Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Gordon


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric


Cartwright, John
Horam, John
O'Halloran, Michael


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Howell. Rl Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm'H)
Orbach, Maurice


Clemitson, Ivor
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Huckfield, Les
Ovenden, John


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Owen, Dr David


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Padley, Walter


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Palmer, Arthur


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Park, George


Conlan, Bernard
Hunter, Adam
Parker, John


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Parry, Robert


Corbett, Robin
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln}
Pendry, Tom


Crawshaw, Richard
Janner, Greville
Perry, Ernest


Cronin, John
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Phipps, Dr Colin


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jenkins, Rl Hon Roy (Stechford)
Prescott, John


Cryer, Bob
John, Brynmor
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Radice, Giles


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kelley. Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kerr, Russell
Robinson, Geoffrey


Deakins, Eric
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kinnock, Neil
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lambie, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lamborn, Harry
Rooker, J. W.


Dempsey, James
Lamond, James
Roper, John


Doig, Peter
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rose, Paul B.


Dormand, J. D.
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lee, John
Rowlands, Ted


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sandelson, Neville


Dunn, James A.
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Sedgemore, Brian


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Selby, Harry


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Eadie, Alex
Lipton, Marcus
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Edge, Geoff
Litterick, Tom
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Edwards Robert (Wolv SE)
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Loyden, Eddie
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


English, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)







Silverman, Julius
Tinn, James
Whitehead, Phillip


Skinner, Dennis
Tomlinson, John
Whitlock, William


Small, William
Tomney, Frank
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Torney, Tom
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Snape, Peter
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Spearing, Nigel
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Stallard, A. W.
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Williams, Sir Thomas


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Stoddart, David
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Stott, Roger
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Strang, Gavin
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Ward, Michael
Woodall, Alec


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Watkins, David
Woof, Robert


Swain, Thomas
Watkinson, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Weetch, Ken
Young, David (Bolton E)


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Weitzman, David



Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Wellbeloved, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
White, James (Pollok)
Mr. James Hamilton


Tierney, Sydney






Question accordingly negatived.


Main Question Put accordingly:—


The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 283.




Division No. 264.]
AYES
[2.14 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Graham, Ted


Allaun, Frank
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Anderson, Donald
Cryer, Bob
Grant, John (Islington C)


Archer, Peter
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Grocott, Bruce


Armstrong, Ernest
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Ashley, Jack
Dalyell, Tam
Hardy, Peter


Ashton, Joe
Davidson, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hatton, Frank


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Deakins, Eric
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bates, All
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bean, R. E.
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hooley, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Horam, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dempsey, James
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm'H)


Bidwell, Sydney
Doig, Peter
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Bishop, E. S.
Dormand, J. D.
Huckfield, Les


Bienkinsop, Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Boardman, H.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hunter, Adam


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Eadie, Alex
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Bradley, Tom
Edge, Geoff
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Edwards Robert (Wolv SE)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Janner, Greville


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
English, Michael
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Buchan, Norman
Ennals, David
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Buchanan, Richard
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
John, Brynmor


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Evans, John (Newton)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Campbell, Ian
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Canavan, Dennis
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cant, R. B.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Judd, Frank


Carmichael, Neil
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Kaufman, Gerald


Carter, Ray
Flannery, Martin
Kelley, Richard


Carter-Jones. Lewis
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Kerr, Russell


Cartwright, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kinnock, Nell


Clemitson, Ivor
Ford, Ben
Lambie, David


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Forrester, John
Lamborn, Harry


Cohen, Stanley
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lamond, James


Coleman, Donald
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Freeson, Reginald
Leadbitter, Ted


Concannon, J. D.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lee, John


Conlan, Bernard
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
George, Bruce
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Corbett, Robin
Gilbert, Dr John
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Ginsburg, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Golding, John
Lipfon, Marcus


Crawshaw, Richard
Gould, Bryan
Litterick, Tom


Cronin, John
Gourlay, Harry
Lomas, Kenneth







Loyden, Eddie
Palmer, Arthur
Strang, Gavin


Luard, Evan
Park, George
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Parker, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Pavitt, Laurie
Swain, Thomas


McCartney, Hugh
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Perry, Ernest
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


MacKenzie, Gregor
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Mackintosh, John P.
Prescott, John
Tierney, Sydney


Maclennan, Robert
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Tinn, James


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Price, William (Rugby)
Tomlinson, John


McNamara, Kevin
Radice, Giles
Tomney, Frank


Madden, Max
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Torney, Tom


Magee, Bryan
Richardson, Miss Jo
Tuck, Raphael


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Urwin, T. W.


Mahon, Simon
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Marks, Kenneth
Robinson, Geoffrey
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Marquand, David
Roderick, Caerwyn
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Ward, Michael


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Rooker, J. W.
Watkins, David


Maynard, Miss Joan
Roper, John
Watkinson, John


Meacher, Michael
Rose, Paul B.
Weetch, Ken


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Weitzman, David


Mendelson, John
Rowlands, Ted
Wellbeloved, James


Mikardo, Ian
Sandelson, Neville
White, Frank R.(Bury)


Millan, Bruce
Sedgemore, Brian
White, James (Pollok)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Selby, Harry
Whitehead, Phillip


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Whitlock, William


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Moonman, Eric
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Williams, Sir Thomas


Moyle, Roland
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Sillars, James
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Newens, Stanley
Skinner, Dennis
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Noble, Mike
Small, William
Woodall, Alec


Oakes, Gordon
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Woof, Robert


Ogden, Eric
Snape, Peter
Wrigglesworth, Ian


O'Halloran, Michael
Spearing, Nigel
Young, David (Bolton E)


Orbach, Maurice
Stallard, A. W.



Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ovenden, John
Stoddart, David
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Owen, Dr David
Stott, Roger
Mr. James Hamilton.


Padley, Walter






NOES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Mark
Farr, John


Alison, Michael
Carson, John
Fell, Anthony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Arnold, Tom
Channon, Paul
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Churchill, W. S.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Awdry, Daniel
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Kenneth
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Banks, Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Beith, A. J.
Clegg, Walter
Freud, Clement


Bell, Ronald
Cockcroft, John
Fry, Peter


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Cope, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cordle, John H.
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Biffen, John
Cormack, Patrick
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Biggs-Davison, John
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Blaker, Peter
Critchley, Julian
Glyn, Dr Alan


Body, Richard
Crouch, David
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Crowder, F. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Bottomley, Peter
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Goodhew, Victor


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Goodlad, Alastair


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Gorst, John


Bradford, Rev Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Drayson, Burnaby
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Brittan, Leon
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Dunlop, John
Gray, Hamish


Brotherton, Michael
Durant, Tony
Griffiths, Eldon


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dykes, Hugh
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Grist, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grylls, Michael


Buck, Antony
Elliott, Sir William
Hall, Sir John


Budgen, Nick
Emery, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bulmer, Esmond
Eyre, Reginald
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Burden, F. A.
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hannam, John







Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Sainsbury, Tim


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mawby, Ray
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Scott, Nicholas


Havers, Sir Michael
Mayhew, Patrick
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hawkins, Paul
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hayhoe, Barney
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mills, Peter
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Heseltine, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Shepherd, Colin


Hicks, Robert
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shersby, Michael


Higgins, Terence L.
Moate, Roger
Silvester, Fred


Holland, Philip
Molyneaux, James
Sims, Roger


Hordern, Peter
Monro, Hector
Sinclair, Sir George


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Montgomery, Fergus
Skeet, T. H. H.


Howell, David (Guildford)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morgan, Geraint
Speed, Keith


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Spence, John


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hurd, Douglas
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Sproat, lain


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Mudd, David
Stainton, Keith


James, David
Neave, Airey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Nelson, Anthony
Stanley, John


Jessel, Toby
Neubert, Michael
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Newton, Tony
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Normanton, Tom
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Jopling, Michael
Nott, John
Stokes, John


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Onslow, Cranley
Stradling Thomas, J.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Tapsell, Peter


Kellett, Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Osborn, John
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, John (Harrow West)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Kimball, Marcus
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Tebbit, Norman


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Pardoe, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Parkinson, Cecil
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Kirk, Sir Peter
Penhaligon, David
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Percival, Ian
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Cyril D.


Knox, David
Pink, R. Bonner
Trotter, Neville


Lamont, Norman
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Tugendhat, Christopher


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Lawrence, Ivan
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Viggers, Peter


Lawson, Nigel
Raison, Timothy
Wakeham, John


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rathbone, Tim
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Lloyd, Ian
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Loveridge, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wall, Patrick


Luce, Richard
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Walters, Dennis


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Warren, Kenneth


McCrindle, Robert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Weatherill, Bernard


McCusker, H.
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wells, John


Macfarlane, Nell
Ridsdale, Julian
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


MacGregor, John
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Winterton, Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Madel, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Younger, Hon George


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)



Marten, Neil
Ross, William (Londonderry)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mates, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mr. W. Benyon and


Mather, Carol
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Mr. Jim Lester


Maude, Angus
Royle, Sir Anthony

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bills:—

Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Rent (Agriculture) Bill shall be completed in one allotted day, and—

(a) the Proceedings on Consideration shall be brought to a conclusion at half-past Ten o'clock, and
(b) the proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion at Midnight.

(2) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Education Bill shall be completed in one allotted day, and—

(a) the Proceedings on Consideration shall be brought to a conclusion at half-past Ten o'clock, and
(b) the Proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion at Midnight

(3) Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committees) shall not apply to this Order.

Dilatory Motions

2. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on either Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

3.—(1) On an allotted day for either Bill paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on that Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which Proceedings on either Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under pargaraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period under this paragraph.

(3) If an allotted day for either Bill is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the period during which Proceedings on that Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under this paragraph, and the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on that Bill which, under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall also be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion.

Private Business

4. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day for either Bill shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on that Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on that Bill, or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the Completion of those Proceedings.

Conclusion of Proceedings

5.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(b) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If, at Seven o'clock on an allotted day for either Bill, any Proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.

(4) If a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over to Seven o'clock on an allotted day for either Bill, or to any later time under subparagraph (3) above, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day at any hour falling after the beginning of the Proceedings on that Motion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

6.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and the last foregoing paragraph shall apply as it applies to Proceedings on one of the Bills on an allotted day for that Bill.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on either Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

7. Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on one of the Bills or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on either Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

8.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day for either Bill, no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

9. In this Order—
'allotted day' in relation to either Bill means any day (other than a Friday) on which that Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the day provided that in each case a Motion for allotting time to the Proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day has been agreed on a previous day.
'the Bills' means the Rent (Agriculture) Bill and the Education Bill.

RUSSIAN EMBASSY SITE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

2.25 a.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Before we adjourn there is a number of points that I should like to raise in connection with the strange way in which the Foreign Office has handled the question of the new site for the Russian Embassy.
To put the matter into perspective, I understand, although I have never been to Moscow, that our embassy there is one of the few remaining in the centre of the capital. It is on a site with a magnificent view of the Kremlin, but the building itself is rather small. For many years the Russian Government have warned us that they may want us to move to another site further out, particularly if we require more space. To facilitate these negotiations the Foreign Office has been eager to offer the Russians a site that will be more to their liking in inner London, although they already have extensive accommodation here, including a number of properties which are magnificent and very large.
I understand that the Russian Government have refused to co-operate with the Foreign Office by supplying a list of the many properties that their diplomats and other officials are currently occupying. We know, of course, that they have their big permanent trade delegation in High-gate, their eye-catching row of shops in Holborn and the splendid Aeroflot offices within a stone's throw of Piccadilly Circus, as well as the embassy and consular buildings in Kensington. I should like to deal more fully with those.
It was in 1930 that there was first an outcry when the Russian Govern-

ment acquired the lease of the Crown property at No. 13 Palace Gardens for their ambassador. Now, however, they occupy no fewer than five of these very grand properties in Palace Gardens, as well as many other sites in the borough I have the honour to represent.
Those properties known by the council to be occupied by Russian officials, when I inquired a year ago, were No. 3 Rosary Gardens, Nos. 2 and 43 Holland Park, No. 79 Addison Road, Nos. 9, 10 and 11 Earl's Terrace, Nos. 21 and 23 Pembridge Villas, No. 23 Camden Hill Gardens, and No. 8 Holland Park. There may well be others. That is surely a large Russian presence in Kensington. I believe that the Russians also have extensive accommodation in other boroughs, especially in Camden.
To accommodate the Russians' desire for space, the eye of the Foreign Office lit, some 10 years ago, on the old barracks in Kensington Church Street. This stands on Crown property and was given up by the Services in 1972. It is beginning to become rather derelict through planning blight, and is being used in unsatisfactory, temporary ways.
The barracks site covers about 1·7 acres and is potentially one of the most valuable sites in the Royal borough awaiting redevelopment, having a frontage on to Church Street sufficient to accommodate 11 shops and with useful commercial and residential potential at the back in an area greatly in demand, standing near to the High Street and having easy access into Kensington Gardens.
I understand that from the outset the borough council made known its reservations about the use of the barracks site for a low-density diplomatic development, particularly if it would have the effect of shutting the people of Kensington out and, of course, losing much of the potentially useful income from rates. I have made known my own objections very plainly over a number of years.
To make progress, in 1973 I suggested to the borough council that it might consider putting forward another site which it would prefer the Russians to use, and this it did. It came forward with the recommendation of the magnificent site at the top of Palace Gardens, which was formerly occupied by Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and takes in as well the land where Nos.


4, 5, 6 and 7 Palace Gardens still stand. Each of those buildings would be large enough for a normal embassy in itself, so together with the other five buildings which the Russians already use in Palace Gardens, this site would bring up their accommodation to the equivalent of 12 embassy buildings besides the trade delegation property in Highgate, and all the rest. This alternative site, facing south over Kensington Gardens and taking in the corner of Palace Gardens, is one of the most splendid in London and is about an acre larger even than the barracks site. It covers about 2·7 acres, I understand.
I fully expected that that offer would solve the problem, and I thought that the difficulty arising from the fact that the existing buildings are protected could probably be overcome, possibly by constructing the new buildings inside the existing facades. However, last year the former Prime Minister launched his programme of closer co-operation with the Soviet Union. I suppose that it was in wake of his agreements with Mr. Brezhnev in February 1975 that the Foreign Office took the decision that I find especially disturbing.
The Minister of State wrote to me on 9th July 1975 intimating—I can put it no more strongly—that the Russians were being encouraged to think of taking both these major Kensington sites, not just one or the other. His letter to me was so oblique that I did not take in what was being done; but I consider that the Foreign Office acted in bad faith in allowing the borough council to suggest the Palace Gardens site as an alternative to the barracks site, only to have it added on to the other with Foreign Office connivance and even, as it now turns out, encouragement.
While the Minister and I were exchanging letters earlier this year—at his request I did not even show his reply to the town clerk—the Foreign Office decided to make a statement to the Press without letting me know.
The first I heard of it was through a telephone call on the morning of 3rd May, asking me for a statement on the report in The Observer, which I had not even seen. To add to my embarrassment, when I called the following day at the office of the architects commissioned by

the Foreign Office to work out the detailed plans in the hope of learning what was intended, I was told that the Foreign Office had given instructions that I was to be told and shown nothing. I had to leave without even seeing the models that had already been shown to officers of the borough council and to one of the councillors.
I would like to add now that I believe the architects retained by the Foreign Office to assist the Russians are extremely competent people, and they have shown me, personally, every courtesy.
It was only in the past fortnight that I was finally allowed to see the draft plans. These include, for the Palace Gardens site, an office block, six floors of flats, the new consular building, and the embassy proper, in a lavish layout with trees and open space. The plans for the barracks site are startling. They include accommodation for 60 flats in a tower block, a school, a gym and paddling pool, a sauna, a theatre and dressing room, a library, cultural and interview rooms, car parking, a garden area and concourse, and a tennis court. All are to be built at very low density—about one-third of the normal for Central London. Most striking of all is the proposal to build a range of shop fronts along the pavement of Church Street, which can be used for propaganda displays.
The whole plan for this compound is reminiscent of the Iron Curtain capitals, and the people of London, who will presumably be permanently excluded from it, may well conclude that it is little more than a costly forcing-house for spies.
If the Foreign Office chose, they could surely persuade the Russians to fit all these projects on to the Palace Gardens site and still be well within the normal density limits. I cannot calculate what the citizens of the borough will forfeit in the way of rates if the plans for these very spread projects are allowed to proceed, but I suppose that their unwilling permanent tribute to the Soviet Union through loss of revenue will amount to at least £1,000 a week.
I have only touched on the problem of the listed buildings that might prevent the free development of the Palace Gardens site. These are not of the first rank of importance, and if the Russians


proposed an attractive and harmonious scheme, I believe that the public would show a reasonable degree of agreement. There is bound to be controversy when old buildings have to go, but it must be admitted that the condition and interior quality of Nos. 4 to 7 Palace Gardens are not in their favour. The massive Czech Embassy building opposite, with its trailing radio wires, and the deplorable Seifert block of flats on the next site to the south have already changed the character of the north end of Palace Gardens beyond redemption, sadly though I have to admit it.
As to the public inquiry, the inspector will no doubt examine the detailed proposals and make his recommendations about the future of the protected buildings. But we all know that it is for the Secretary of State to force the final decision, if he chooses, on policy grounds.
The political aspect of the matter is what causes the deepest concern to the House and the general public. Do we think it right to allow the Russian Government to assume this looming, over-whelming presence in Central London, like a colonial Power? Do we agree to their representatives in London being herded into a compound where they can be shielded from contamination by Western ideas through normal contacts with the native population? Is it worth paying this very high price for a comparable area outside the centre of Moscow—if the Russians are indeed offering a comparable area—and do we ourselves want such a costly embassy development in Moscow anyway? Our diplomatic strength is much smaller there than is the Russian presence in London.
One point, however, the Foreign Office seem entirely to have overlooked in all the years during which these negotiations have dragged on. That is the deplorable contrast between the conditions in which the Russians' commercial and technical people are able to operate here and the miserable way in which our business men and experts are forced to work in the Soviet Union. Why does the Minister not exercise some leverage here? It is the sort of bargain the Russians would understand.
If the Foreign Office would exert itself in the British interest instead of lying down to be walked on by the Russians

and letting them overrun Central London, it could still redeem itself in spite of the supine lack of heart, skill, or even good faith with which it has handled this wretched sell-out from the start.

2.36 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. John Tomlinson): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) for having raised this question, but from the outset I must say that I do not accept some of the rather intemperate language that he has used. I do not accept that the Government have acted in bad faith, or that the Foreign Office has engaged in connivance and encouragement, or been supine in any way.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the question. It is one that has concerned Her Majesty's Government for some time and it may be helpful to the hon. Member and the House if I mention briefly one or two aspects of its past history.
Some years ago the Soviet authorities indicated their wish to concentrate most of their accommodation in London in the Kensington Palace Gardens area, where they already had leases on a number of sites. They have been in the area since the 1930s. Their wish was to rehouse the ambassador, his principal offices and much of his embassy's staff accommodation in this area.
Discussions have been going on for a number of years about the possibility of the mutual provision of sites in London and Moscow on which the premises of the Soviet Embassy in London and of ours in Moscow could be erected.
The Soviet authorities have at various times shown interest in several different sites in the Kensington Palace Gardens area and have at various times contemplated seeking permission to develop different combinations of sites. Last year they expressed a firm preference for three of them—Nos. 1–7 Kensington Palace Gardens, the ambassador's existing house at No. 13 Kensington Palace Gardens, and the old Kensington Barracks site.
The sites in London are the property of the Crown Estates Commission. It is envisaged that their development as sites for the Soviet Embassy would be Crown development, which would be governed


by the Department of Environment's Circular 80 procedure. The procedure is intended to ensure that applications governed by it do not receive more favourable treatment than those for private development. This means that building plans are submitted in the normal way to the local planning authority, Kensington and Chelsea in this case. This involves full public consultation by the local planning authority, in the same way as for a private application. Subject to the local planning authority's view, it is then open to the Secretary of State for the Environment to call a public inquiry.
This is a perfectly normal procedure where Crown development is concerned. There is no question of riding roughshod over local planning requirements, given the existence of the planning safeguards that I have mentioned.
At present the Soviet authorities are working on the plans and specifications of the buildings that they would like to have on these sites if planning authority for them can be secured. They are being assisted in this work by a British firm of architectural consultants, whose role is to advise the Soviet authorities on the harmonisation of their proposals and the various local planning constraints.
If, at a later stage, the architectural consultants can recommend these plans so that they can form the basis of a planning application, they will be notified by my Department to the local planning authority under the provisions of Circular 80. The hon. Member may recall that this explanation has already been given to him in a reply by the Minister of State on 7th May 1976.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that neither the inspector nor the Secretary of State for the Environment, in considering the inspector's report, will take any cognisance of the political implication of the question, which is the most important aspect of the matter?

Mr. Tomlinson: The point that I am making is that normal planning procedures will take place. There is no question of anybody riding roughshod over the normal planning requirements of the Circular 80 procedure.
Perhaps I should again spell out what those procedures are. The Circular 80 procedure, which would apply in this instance, is intended to ensure that no applications governed by it receive more favourable treatment than those for private development. The Soviet plans will have to meet the normal requirements of the local planning authority, including, of course, full public consultation by the planning authorities, and thereafter the plans may be the subject of a public inquiry. In that sense there is no question of any decision being taken that in any way pre-empts the normal planning requirements.
I think that I should mention why the Government are helping the Soviet Embassy with its planning application. It has been suggested that they do not normally give assistance of that kind to other embassies. We are involved in this case because we require assistance from the Soviet authorities with the rehousing of our embassy in Moscow, in the face of a planning decision by the Moscow city authorities to take over our present site, which we do not own, in the not-too-distant future. But I emphasise that any assistance that the Government provide in the development of sites for the Soviet Embassy in London will be fully in accordance with normal planning procedures and will be conditional on the Soviet authorities providing us with corresponding assistance in Moscow.
The matter has been referred to as being of great public interest. I think that the hon. Gentleman was slightly wrong when he suggested that he had seen firm plans. Indeed, he gave us an extensive description of some working drawings that he had seen. I understand that the plans are not yet ready. The Soviet authorities are presently working on them, with the assistance of a British firm of architectural consultants. When they are finally notified to the local planning authority, they will, of course, be made available for inspection. That is the normal and proper procedure.
I should make it clear that there have been a number of discussions on this matter within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The House will not expect me to divulge the details of exchanges that may have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and another Government, but I can assure the House


that my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has taken, and continues to take, a close personal and active interest in this proposed development. The Soviet authorities can be in no doubt about the implications of the proposed development.
I have no reason to suggest that anything other than normal planning procedures have taken place, and I am sure that that is what the hon. Gentleman would expect the situation to be. It is one of long standing and substantial discussion—discussion that is continuing—and it will be resolved only by the use of the normal planning procedures laid down in Circular 80.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: If we hand over to the Soviet Embassy and its staff in London this area of several acres, what are we to get in exchange? It is suggested that we should move out of the centre of Moscow, where we have a

splendid building, to some place outside. What about our commercial representation, which is pitifully inadequate? Is the Foreign Office taking any notice of our salesmen and technicians, who are trying to develop better relations and dealings with the Russians?

Mr. Tomlinson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are always deeply conscious of the issues that he has raised. There is no question of the Foreign Office handing over a site to anyone. There is a site—Crown land—that is the subject of possible application under the Circular 80 procedure. When that application has been made, as I emphasise for the third time, it will be treated in accordance with the normal planning requirements.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Three o'clock a.m.